Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
I've got too much time on my hands :-).
I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on the subject line. Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer jokes, computer questions, etc.. So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). -- It's turtles, all the way down |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
... I've got too much time on my hands :-). I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on the subject line. Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer jokes, computer questions, etc.. So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call attention to yourself? todd |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
todd wrote: ... So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call attention to yourself? There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told them to post about this week. Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative of consent. -- FF |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
|
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
Mark & Juanita wrote: On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, wrote: todd wrote: ... So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call attention to yourself? There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told them to post about this week. Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview? I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros. My guess is you mean George Soros: http://www.altavista.com/web/results...os&kgs=1&kls=0 -- FF |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
wrote in message
oups.com... todd wrote: ... So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call attention to yourself? There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". I doubt it's very applicable to a USENET newsgroup, where dozens of topics are being discussed at a any particular time. Does this mean that I can go back in the rec.ww archives and if I find a thread you have not posted in I can assume you consent to the content? That I daresay, is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told them to post about this week. I have no problem with people posting to off-topic threads. What I do have a problem with is hyprocrites. Here's another old adage: "And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?" Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative of consent. Riiiight. Good thing everyone keeps track of who has plonked whom, just so we can keep the score up to date. No one cares that someone has been plonked. todd |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
In article ,
"todd" wrote: Here's another old adage: "And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?" Bingo! Finally back to woodworking. Let's discuss The Beam. You first. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
"Robatoy" wrote in message
... In article , "todd" wrote: Here's another old adage: "And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?" Bingo! Finally back to woodworking. Let's discuss The Beam. You first. Well, there is a very large LVL beam sitting in my driveway right now. It's 3 1/2" thick, 14" deep, and about 19 feet long waiting to start holding the second floor of my home addition so it doesn't become part of the first floor. todd |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
todd wrote: wrote in message oups.com... todd wrote: ... So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call attention to yourself? There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". I doubt it's very applicable to a USENET newsgroup, where dozens of topics are being discussed at a any particular time. Does this mean that I can go back in the rec.ww archives and if I find a thread you have not posted in I can assume you consent to the content? IMHO no, but *I* do not ascribe to the adage, though I do note that many others do. Howver, suppose you find a two threads that I did participate in. I exited one with a 'plonk' and the plonked party followed up with a number of statements that did not previously appear in the thread. In the other thread, I simply went away. In the second case, it is unclear is I assented to what was written after my exit. In the first case it appears probable that I never read the comments. That I daresay, is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told them to post about this week. I have no problem with people posting to off-topic threads. What I do have a problem with is hyprocrites. Here's another old adage: "And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?" Irrelevent. The distinction between starting off-topic threads and replying in them is like the distinction between punching somebody in the nose and punching somebody in the nose after he hits you first. Some of us regard that to be a distinction without a difference, some of us do not. Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative of consent. Riiiight. Good thing everyone keeps track of who has plonked whom, just so we can keep the score up to date. No one cares that someone has been plonked. Well I didn't think that up all by myself. That is basicly what I remember from the UseNet FAQ. Yes, at one time there was only one. -- FF |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
In article .com,
wrote: In the second case, it is unclear is I assented to what was written after my exit. In the first case it appears probable that I never read the comments. In the second case, nobody noticed nor cared. -- Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression! |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
wrote:
There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". There's another adage... "Tis better to be silent and thought a fool..." That I daresay, Daresay? Damn, you're pullin out all the stops here. is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that we do not consent Hey, contribution is a wonderful thing. But who cares if you prove or disprove consent? Just speak your mind and leave it at that. to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told them to post about this week. Pat who? You mean that TV preacher guy that tried for the Republican nomination for President once? That guy that finds his wobbly old ass on TV apologizing for clumsy statements that he made the previous week? That Pat Robertson? Do YOU listen to him? I sure don't. Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative of consent. And here I thought you were just a twit getting his jollies by telling someone you "plonked" them. I'll consider myself straightened out. Joe Barta |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Daneluk
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... I've got too much time on my hands :-). I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on the subject line. Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer jokes, computer questions, etc.. So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). -- It's turtles, all the way down Why would anyone care who you killfile . We [most of us] have the ability to make our own choices. |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Larry Blanchard wrote:
I've got too much time on my hands :-). I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on the subject line. Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer jokes, computer questions, etc.. So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the time. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my killfile :-). First, thank you for my very own thread. Second, Good Manners dictates that you mark this sort of thing OT, or at the very least mark it a META thread since it is NOT about WWing. Third, you might continue your deep statistical analysis by examining just how many OT threads I actually *start*. In my recollection, it is few. But I will not sit back and watch other people pitch bad ideas, dangerous to my future, hence I get involved in OT threads. But mostly, this is well after they are underway. Fourth, I rarely start or add to On-Topic threads because I have little useful to say there. I am a rookie WWer, having only done it for about 8 years and anything I might add would be of little value beyond the expertise already found here. Fifth, if this group gnerally practiced self-restraint and avoided OTs and/or limited them to very short exchanges, I would observe this without reservation. In fact, most NGs I read do exactly this and I observe the customs of the community. But you and your ilk cannot on the one hand jump in with all of the ideological gas passing the characterizes your posts and expect everyone else to observe a moment of silence in your honor. I've no idea what kind of human you are - perhaps we'd be friendly neighbors in the Real World - but by your testimony, I know your ideas are pernicious and dangerous to Liberty, hence you get counterargument from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. Fifth, I am gratified to know that I have gotten on your nerves enough that you feel the need to make the debate about my personal posting behavior. Squealing of this sort is almost always the evidence of the lack of coherent ideas and it's time to go after the speaker. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a
Usenet junky and a Conflict junky. You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup - why don't you bugger off, then! Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably polite interrogative. Other than the misspelling of your name, I see no reason not to use his reasoning to add you to the killfile. The brace of twits who missed the point can look forward to your posts in the future. I will not. |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:
I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a Usenet junky and a Conflict junky. You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup - why don't you bugger off, then! Sorry to disappoint, but I do not fit your demographic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
"First, thank you for my very own thread."
You are to be congratulated, although you will have to search for the initiation under a misspelled attribution. "Second, Good Manners dictates that you mark this sort of thing OT, or at the very least mark it a META thread since it is NOT about WWing." As you have not been particularly careful about this in your own posting history I would not blow this horn too loudly. "Third, you might continue your deep statistical analysis by examining just how many OT threads I actually *start*. In my recollection, it is few. But I will not sit back and watch other people pitch bad ideas, dangerous to my future, hence I get involved in OT threads. But mostly, this is well after they are underway." It would seem that you imply a distinction between the origination of an OT thread and the participation in an OT thread. There are some of us who would not embrace the distinction. "Fourth, I rarely start or add to On-Topic threads because I have little useful to say there. I am a rookie WWer, having only done it for about 8 years and anything I might add would be of little value beyond the expertise already found here." This is actually the funniest statement that I have found, so far. Google shows 148 postings by you to rec. woodworking, and as you claim that few of these have to do with actual woodworking, and therefore are OT, I am left to wonder at your persistance in expressing your views in a forum where you, admittedly, have no special knowledge. "Fifth, if this group gnerally practiced self-restraint and avoided OTs and/or limited them to very short exchanges, I would observe this without reservation. In fact, most NGs I read do exactly this and I observe the customs of the community. But you and your ilk cannot on the one hand jump in with all of the ideological gas passing the characterizes your posts and expect everyone else to observe a moment of silence in your honor. I've no idea what kind of human you are - perhaps we'd be friendly neighbors in the Real World - but by your testimony, I know your ideas are pernicious and dangerous to Liberty, hence you get counterargument from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. " Now, this is a very interesting expression of intent. Do you mean to say that on; alt.smokers.pipes, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, comp.lang.python, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, fa.freebsd.stable, rec.photo.darkroom, comp.protocols.smb, rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.large-format, comp.mail.sendmail, comp.lang.python.announce, gnu.emacs.bug, alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.mail.sendmail, rec.photo.misc, mailing.freebsd.ports, muc.lists.freebsd.stable - all of which represent a subset of the newsgroups that you have been a participant in, you have found the level of restraint greater than here on rec.woodworking? Would you care to have this proven to be false? Is it really necessary? Isn't the truth obvious? Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the culture of the groups that you violate? You are a Usenet junky, Daneliuk. You are also a conflict junky. And your song has grown tired unto our ears. Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably polite inquiry; followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood his intent. I am not one who uses killfiles, but, if I did, you would be one of the first in the bin. Other than his misspelling of your name, for use in the blocking of your posts, I believe him to be right on target. Good Day, Sir. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Entfillet wrote: snipfollowed by a brace of fools who misunderstood
his intent.snip I'll bet 90% of _all_ our problems result from this very thing. But Mr. Blanchard has too much time on his hands, which can lead to mischief. Internet mischief. The Googling of people! I suppose now we've all googled Mr Blanchard. I for one look back on a lot of my posts as an exercise in humiliation, at least that's my excuse for now. A thicker skin may help, but not as much when the intent is obscured. Or was his intent obscured at all? Tom |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Bourbon. Crushed mint. Branch water. More ice than for most drinks.
|
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Most anything neat, for me. But I have too much time on my hands(insert
smiley-face here). Tom |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:
SNIP from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. " Now, this is a very interesting expression of intent. Do you mean to say that on; alt.smokers.pipes, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, comp.lang.python, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, fa.freebsd.stable, rec.photo.darkroom, comp.protocols.smb, rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.large-format, comp.mail.sendmail, comp.lang.python.announce, gnu.emacs.bug, alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.mail.sendmail, rec.photo.misc, mailing.freebsd.ports, muc.lists.freebsd.stable - all of which represent a subset of the newsgroups that you have been a participant in, you have found the level of restraint greater than here on rec.woodworking? I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but rec.woodworking and a.s.pipes *both* of which are NGs that regularly practice OT sideshows with many participants. Years ago, there were some of these in some of the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty quickly. In the vast majority of the aforementioned groups I have stayed very much OT to either ask questions, answer questions (because these are groups wherein I *do* have expertise to share), or make OT comments. I hope this is OK with you and your fellow NG Policemen. Would you care to have this proven to be false Is it really necessary? Isn't the truth obvious? Yes the truth is quite obvious. OT postings are permitted / encouraged / nurtured so long as they contain the politically correct content that a few self-anointed nannies have prescribed. When said nannies get backed into a rhetorical corner by someone equal to their writing, the scream "foul, you're OT." Sorry Sparky, you cannot on the one hand have a culture that embraces OT chatter and then howl about how much its been hijacked by "conflict junkies." For example, I despised Clinton but you will not find reams of OT threads I initiated to beat him up. When others defended him, I sometimes jumped in, but I respected the silence otherwise. Jaques, Fred, Watson, et al are very quick to howl about any political topic they wish, and then howl again when they get countering argument they cannot refute. If this group seriously wishes for OT threads to go away, I will honor it in the same degree other members do. Which is to say that the Usual Suspects cannot jump in, rant about Bush, the War, the color of their underwear, or whatever else strikes their fancy and then demand those of us with opposing view be still. (Note: I have no distinct position on the color of people's underwear.) In short - and I'll use simple concepts and small words for the Guilty - I did not (typically) start political conflict and I will not do so in the future. But if you start with the nonsense that has characterized this group for years, expect to get spanked (no doubt some of you enjoy it). Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the culture of the groups that you violate? I am *very* much a part of the wreck culture in which OT threads are regularly intiated (usually/almost never by me) on political topics. You cannot rationally chastise me for something I did not initiate and which goes on whether I post or not. You can, of course, do so irrationally ... oh, you already have. You are a Usenet junky, Daneliuk. I don't have to be a junky. I read and write rapidly, thereby making the refutation of foul ideas a minor part of the day. You are also a conflict junky. Only when presented with pernicious ideas and boneheaded logic. I'm actually rather easy to get on with otherwise. And your song has grown tired unto our ears. Then don't listen. In fact, I offer you the opportunity to make it go away completely by not starting the humming in the first place. Personally, I don't think you and the rest can do it, but I'm absolutely willing to honor your doing so. Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably polite inquiry; followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood his intent. Yes, I know, we mere unenlightened plebes are indeed a "brace of fools" for failing to sign up for the politically correct outcome dictated by our betters. I am not one who uses killfiles, but, if I did, you would be one of the first in the bin. I am smitten with sadness about that and will work diligently to overcome my despair. Other than his misspelling of your name, for use in the blocking of your posts, I believe him to be right on target. A belief you are entitled to. But if you give your beliefs voice here, then expect counterargument from people who do not share your religion. This is not cruel, ill-intentioned, or mean-spirited, it is called _discussion_, something that's been dying at the hands of the PC Thought Police for too long. Good Day, Sir. Well, at least you have one positive note. I think I already *did* have a Good Day and hopefully will have many more. N.B. I really am not trying to be a wise guy here. The culture of the Wreck was contentious when I first started reading it and it has always been so with many an OT thread, political especially. I will *absolutely* honor the culture of the group as it evolves as I presently honor it by engaging in its normal practices. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
"I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but
rec.woodworking..." KP to KP3. "Years ago, there were some of these in some of the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty quickly." QP to QP3. "In the vast majority of the aforementioned groups I have stayed very much OT to either ask questions, answer questions (because these are groups wherein I *do* have expertise to share), or make OT comments." KP3 to KP4. "Yes the truth is quite obvious. OT postings are permitted / encouraged / nurtured so long as they contain the politically correct content that a few self-anointed nannies have prescribed. When said nannies get backed into a rhetorical corner by someone equal to their writing, the scream "foul, you're OT." Sorry Sparky..." QP3 to QP4. "For example, I despised Clinton but you will not find reams of OT threads I initiated to beat him up." KBP to KBP3. "Jaques, Fred, Watson, et al are very quick to howl about any political topic they wish, and then howl again when they get countering argument they cannot refute." QB to KB4. ?? "f this group seriously wishes for OT threads to go away, I will honor it in the same degree other members do." QKn to QB4 (possible?) " I am *very* much a part of the wreck culture..." (Attempted castle move - denied) "You cannot rationally chastise me for something I did not initiate..." (Move denied - insufficient pieces.) "I don't have to be a junky. I read and write rapidly, thereby making the refutation of foul ideas a minor part of the day." (Move denied - insufficient pieces..) "I really am not trying to be a wise guy here." (Game results in default.) Yes, the notation is antiquated and the commentary is silly. So is the argument. Daneliuk is an admitted troll with a predeliction for political pomposity. He has made no contribution to the woodworking knowledge of the group and has made fun of Larry's turtles. I am particularly incensed by his disrespect for the turtles. I hope that you agree. Turtles should be respected. |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:
"I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but rec.woodworking..." KP to KP3. "Years ago, there were some of these in some of the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty quickly." QP to QP3. Nice "proof" ... More feeble chess deleted .. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
In article . com, "entfillet" wrote:
KP to KP3. [...] QP to QP3. [...] KP3 to KP4. [...] QP3 to QP4. [...] KBP to KBP3. LOL -- you've been caught pretending to knowledge you do not possess. Perhaps you should have talked to a *real* chess player before you tried to impersonate one, so that you'd have half a chance of succeeding. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
"entfillet" writes:
Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the culture of the groups that you violate? Actually, could it be more likely that Daneliuk is the current nom de plume of a whitehouse staffer? scott |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote: Fifth, I am gratified to know that I have gotten on your nerves enough that you feel the need to make the debate about my personal posting behavior. Squealing of this sort is almost always the evidence of the lack of coherent ideas and it's time to go after the speaker. I've come to a similar conclusion. I confess that I don't understand the almost pathological need to announce additions to one's kill file. Bizarre. -- Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression! |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Dave Balderstone wrote:
I've come to a similar conclusion. I confess that I don't understand the almost pathological need to announce additions to one's kill file. Bizarre. Not bizarre at all. Seems like a perfectly human thing to do... for some humans. What better way for someone with twittish tendencies to get a petty little jolly on than to announce that they're going to ignore someone? It's not a very impressive display but it's certainly understandable... and done an awful lot on usenet by an awful lot of twittish people. So there is the answer... they do it because they are very human twits. Now that I've ****ed off a few people, let me **** off a few more. EVERY newsgroup has some off topic discussion. If you don't want to read it, then figure out how to work your newsreader so that you can ignore threads, or even ignore certain posters if you must. If you're a twit and suffering from a petty little jolly deficit, you can announce it to the world ;-) And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy reading what he has to say. Joe Barta |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Joe Barta says:
"And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy reading what he has to say." Oh, Good! Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid, alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held and studied. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:
Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid, alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held and studied. Ok, Mr. Marlowe, here's the story... sometimes I'll reply to a message that has been crossposted to a bunch of assorted groups. I suppose I should be more vigilant about such things, but I'm not. It happens to everyone I suppose. I'll take credit for posting to woodworking, construction, html and cigars over the years... but if my replies ended up in various nefarious political groups, it was not intentional. Joe Barta P.S. alt.idiots? Gotta check that one out ;-) |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held and studied. Everybody's got one. Or two. Or thirteen. No reason to get touchy. Tom |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
entfillet wrote:
Joe Barta says: "And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy reading what he has to say." Oh, Good! Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid, alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held and studied. OK, so now you've established that you're able to use Google to examine posting history. This is a skill held by most technologically savvy 12 year olds and is: a) Not an impressive skill and b) Not germane to your argument (that all of us who annoy or disagree with you should slink quietly into the night). I am in an excellent mood, BTW. I just watched W's SOTN speech rerun. While I both agreed and disagreed with some of what he said, it brought joy to my heart knowing that it certainly annoyed the Usual Suspects On The Wreck to the point of Chappackidick Ted levels of apoplexy... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
In article , Joe Barta
wrote: If you don't want to read it, then figure out how to work your newsreader so that you can ignore threads, or even ignore certain posters if you must. The Standard Advice: Ignore, filter, help others to do the same. ;-) -- Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression! |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Google
Dave Balderstone wrote:
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression! I have a different take... I think it's a matter of a little something being better than all of nothing. I'm happy to see Google in China... getting the foot in the door so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, there will be a notice on the search results page stating that certain items have been blocked due to censorship. Google wants access to China's market and I think that was a fair compromise for now. Plus, most certainly some of that awful content like "democracy" and "freedom" will make it through... and I'd say that can only be good. Joe Barta |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
In article ,
Joe Barta wrote: I encourage Tim D. to post and comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy reading what he has to say. Ditto. But!............... :+ |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
I'd rather do this via email, but email to your address bounced.
As you may recall, some time ago, in a thread about 'Intelligent Design' in rec.woodworking you wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points - this includes Science. Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about 'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly off-topic at. I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms. Can you direct me to your source? -- FF |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
|
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes: I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms. Can you direct me to your source? George C. Deutsch, a 24 year old college dropout GWB political appointee. see http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html#a2120 scott Not even close - I, for one, have never even heard of him. I already replied to Fred privately and had not intend to respond here at all. But since the Professionally Snide have raised their heads once again, allow me to show you the real basis of my claims - It's *my* thread, after all. (If you need help with the Really Big Words, feel free to ask): Tim Daneliuk wrote: You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points - this includes Science. Fred asked: I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms. Can you direct me to your source? I am not entirely sure what you are asking. If you want a source for the claim that all systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points (I *think* that's what you're asking), pretty much any decent book on covering epistemology would do. Here is sort of the Cliff Notes: What you "know" depends on what you accept as being "truth". But if you induct backwards to your primary or foundational "truth" (the premise(s) from which your system of knowledge proceeds) you can never "prove" them in the absolute sense. It is analogous to a system of mathematics (which is one example of a very narrow epistemology). You begin with a starting axiom or premise. This premise is not absolutely demonstrable as "true", it is just the jumping off point for your new system of math. You proceed to then build theorems from that starting axiom. A theorem is "proven" only in the sense that it is demonstrated to follow logically from the axiom and perhaps other subsidiary theorems. In general this is the only context in which "proof" is meaningful - as a test of a theorem against a premise. Even then, there is a sort of implicit assumption baked in - that "logic" or "reason" is a meaningful mechanism for apprehending things. All systems of epistemology begin with some basic assertion like "There is a God that has revealed himself" or "Reality exists and can be observed" or "The best outcome for a human is self-indulgence", and so on. In the particular case of science, the foundational premises are something like this : 1. The physical universe is real. 2. We can reliably observe it by harnessing our observations by means of the scientific method. i.e. Logic/Reason work. 3. We can further derive information about the workings of the physical world by taking the results of our "harnessed" observations and applying further induction and deduction to them (i.e., by applying logic). 4. Everything we can ever know about the physical world can be understood in purely mechanical/material terms. i.e., While there may or may not be a larger cause or "purpose" to the world we observe (it's "teleology") understanding such a purpose (if any) is not necessary to the practice of science. Science need only concern itself with the physical parts and can disregard the possibility of a metaphysical whole. There's more here, and I am definitely doing a handwaving description - a real philosopher would no doubt cringe at the liberties I've taken. Now then, my original claim is that you cannot "prove" any of 1-4 above. The best you can do is demonstrate their _utility_ value. That is, you can show useful, practical results from presuming them to be true, but there is no objective standard by which to check them. For instance, it is possible that the universe is an illusion and we don't really exist at all - sort of the "Matrix" view of the world. We have absolutely no way of determining whether this is so or not. In short, we *assume* certain starting points (because they make sense to us, they bring us practical results, they are consistent with other things we believe, and so forth). Once those starting points are established, we build a system (our "theorems" about knowledge) upon them. This exact situation exists for _every_ system of knowledge (epistemology). The axioms of any system can never be "proven" only tested on two dimensions: Do the consequent "theorems" proceed logically from the starting axiom? And, do the "theorems" provide some utility value? The specific contention of the IDers in their critique of science thus falls in a number of areas. Before noting these, let me take care to make three important points: 1) The measure of any system cannot and should not be judged on the merits of its practioners. Just because some scientist fudged his cloning data does not mean that science is invalid in method or result. Just because there are lazy, stupid preachers in no way speaks to the merits of Theism. Similarly a brilliant, consistent scientist/preacher does not _validate_ their system. 2) IDers do not have an agenda to invalidate science. They do not see their work as undermining or eliminating science, but rather as enhancing/augmenting it to more completely be able to understand the universe. Yes, there are the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters of the world who see this as a prime opportunity to get their particular brand of Faith plugged into the culture, but see 1) above. 3) ID is *not* the equivalent of Creationism. Many IDers flatly renounce any notion of a "Young Earth". They are concerned with what they believe is a hole in science as currently construed. Notwithstanding their personal religious Faiths, they are not specifically trying to "religionize" science as one would believe if you listen to the current culture wars on the matter. So, here, as I understand it, are the main ID claims: 1) The currently regnant philosophy of science is fundamentally inadequate. Its assumptions are incomplete and thus unnecessarily self-limiting. Today's science is thus not completely wrong, it is merely incomplete. 2) The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient is wrong. That is, to understand the physical universe, you have to look at more than just the parts. You have to investigate the telelogical questions - _Where_ did the parts come from? _Why_ do they work the way they do? In sum, you have to look at the whole house, not just the bricks, and when you do, you are inexorably driven to the conclusion it had a builder. 3) There is some evidence, using just _today's_ formulation of science, that natural selection/evolution cannot completely account for what we observe. In particular, it is claimed, there are biological constructs that could not survive in a less complex form (irreducable complexity). If so, this means that no precedent (less complex) biological form could survive long enough to evolve into what we see today. For a very good summary of all this, written by the leading lights in the ID movement, see: http://tinyurl.com/9dfpp This is a set of essays written by practicing scientists, philosophers, and other interested parties. Each of these essays is interesting in its own right, but the last chapter by Bruce Gordon (a philsopher of Physics educated at Northwestern University) is flat out brilliant. He makes a compelling case that the very foundations of today's philosophy of science are fundamentally broken and that the proposals of ID *enhance* science, not destroy it. Whether you agree or not, the book generally and this essay particularly are well worth your time. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Tim Daneluk
Other facts:
The universe revolved around the earth. The earth is flat. Sound barrier can not be broached. ECT. I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise. Dave Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Religious kerfluffle, was OT - Tim Daneluk
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snip] Positivism is *dead*, Jim! For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if you want to know where that argument went. It's funny you'd use such a modern argument, the fundamental limits and uncertainty of our perceptive powers, to attack an old idea, and advance a creationist ideology (I know you already denied it's creationism... I disagree, having seen that it is well spun creationism.) The troubles with ID are that they (you) first claim that idea (of limits to knowledge) as their (your) own to discredit science, then propose to do away with it entirely by attributing anything unknown to the Invisible Diddler. Something you can't verify. Yes, so until we sharpen our vision to the degree that that (one at a time, slowly) question can then be answered fully and completely with a precise and unbroken timeline of events, the IDers will step in to say "here, this gray area here, is where the Invisible Diddler shows his miraculous handiwork." Science has for many years already been agonizing over the problems of proof, and exploiting that to advance what amounts to a whimsical thought experiment is... low. The trouble with ID is that it proposes to attack one area of science using lack of a theory in quite another one. There has never been a question regarding evolution that could not be answered with a reasonable scenario, without having to sketch the outlines of an Invisible Diddler. "The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient" is a red herring. We have a much more sophisticated view (today) of emergent systems and complexity that arise from the physical world than the worldview being attacked by the IDers. It's still not necessary to rely upon an Invisible Diddler*. Another red herring is that evolution has ever claimed to describe the genesis of life. It doesn't. We haven't learned enough about *the past* yet to be able to *extend* evolution to such an alien landscape. But equating our ignorance of eras long past to "holes in evolution" is... a red herring. If there is a God/Alien/SpaghettiMonster (and notice I've never said there's not) and I could face him/her/it to ask "was that you they were talking about?" [[s]he|it]'d say no. Then he'd touch me with his noodly appendage, and I'd be enlightened. That book you posted... haven't read it but I have read Behe, and every thing he said was either a lie or omitted contradictory evidence. There's plenty of material online about his smears and about his failures to admit or remove his omissions from his rhetoric--I'll look for commentary on that book. *I just made it up and am infatuated with the phrase, so I'm going to enjoy it for awhile... er -- email not valid |