> > On Nov 2, 6:05 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 2, 3:29 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >> >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> >> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... > >> >> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> > >> >> >> >> <q> > >> >> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with > >> >> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for > >> >> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of > >> >> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. > >> >> >> >> </q>
> >> >> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
> >> >> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically > >> >> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
> >> >> > no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
> >> >> ....of an intellectual competition.
> >> > which doesnt mean it measures intelligence, moron. races dont measure > >> > "speed." you cant tell how fast a person runs by knowing that he won 5 > >> > out of 7 races.
> >> But you can measure who is /faster/.
> >> This is a really handy idea called "relative measurement", as opposed > >> to "absolute measurement". In competitions, the relative measure is > >> more important. You said it yourself: you're a bad chess player, > >> but /relative to/ Eric, because you consider yourself to be smarter > >> than him, you would beat him in chess.
> > what do you suppose would enable me to beat him in chess besides my > > intellect?
> It's not that something other than intellect is being used, it's that > the test is too narrow to be useful.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:01:50 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 2, 4:24 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:13:52 -0800 (PST), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Nov 2, 12:11 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 29 Okt, 13:42,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> > > snexwrote: > >> >> > > > On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> >> > > >>> wrote: > >> >> > > >>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > >> >> > > >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > >> >> > > >>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: > >> >> > > >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> No such thing. > >> >> > > >>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > >> >> > > >>>>>> example of the genre. > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html > >> >> > > >>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, > >> >> > > >>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; > >> >> > > >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > >> >> > > >>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > >> >> > > >>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > >> >> > > >>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. > >> >> > > >>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! > >> >> > > >>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > >> >> > > >>>>>> otherwise. > >> >> > > >>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. > >> >> > > >>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > >> >> > > >>>> esoteric knowledge. > >> >> > > >>>>> if you > >> >> > > >>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > >> >> > > >>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. > >> >> > > >>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > >> >> > > >>>> you. > >> >> > > >>> no, they arent. > >> >> > > >>>> Why is that? > >> >> > > >>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most > >> >> > > >>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe > >> >> > > >>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what > >> >> > > >>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the > >> >> > > >>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually > >> >> > > >>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to > >> >> > > >>> reliable methods of discovery. > >> >> > > >> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. > >> >> > > >> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- > >> >> > > >> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is > >> >> > > >> entirely reasonable.
> >> >> > > > maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him > >> >> > > > on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to > >> >> > > > popularity fallacy.
> >> >> > > Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for > >> >> > > the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more > >> >> > > reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to > >> >> > > be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for > >> >> > > "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations > >> >> > > correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the > >> >> > > reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> >> >> > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > >> >> > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > >> >> > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > >> >> > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> >> >> > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
> >> >> Your reading skills are positively Paganoesque. An appeal to > >> >> popularity would be the claim that theism is true because many people > >> >> are theists. That would be nonsense. The claim that, on average, > >> >> theists are as reasonable as non-theists is an empirical claim. I > >> >> think it's probably true (you probably balance out one or two Paganos > >> >> or Nahtons all by yourself), but even if it isn't, it's not an appeal > >> >> to popularity.
> >> >read the claim again. "lots of people believe it, therefore they are > >> >more reasonable" is what it means.
> >> *You* read the claim again. At no point did he claim > >> causation, only that most people, believers or not, are more > >> reasonable than you. And your posts bear out his claim; if > >> you are at or above the mean for "reasonableness" then > >> Britney Spears is at or above the mean for "mature".
> >im not the one believing in magic men rising from the dead.
> Lack of relevant response noted. Again.
its perfectly relevant. the belief in magic men rising from the dead is entirely unreasonable.
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:17:53 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a > >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
> >no moron, i did not. i stated that i could beat root in ANY > >intellectual competition he would care to name, and since the rest of > >you were too stupid to be able to think of any, i gave chess as one > >example.
> Just exactly how is an "intellectual competition" *not* a > test of relative intelligence?
look braindead idiot, i challenged root to name a competition. you and your croneys asked for an example of one, since you were too stupid to think of any. i gave an example. if you dont like it, tough shit.
> >hard to see how anybody but a complete stuttering idiot could make > >that mistake
> I agree; only a complete stuttering idiot could make a post > in which he cited chess as a valid test, when the subject > was intelligence testing.
only a stuttering idiot thinks that the deciding factor in a chess match between two humans is anything but intellectual. what do you propose i do to beat him? throw the board at him?
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a > >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
> >and it isnt? what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following >appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>> >wrote: >>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... >>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> >>> >> >> <q> >>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with >>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for >>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of >>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. >>> >> >> </q>
>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically >>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual >>> competition" (your words),
>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual >>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your >>words).
>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual >competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those >words as a response when the subject was the measurement of >intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am >>using?
>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess >master?
On Oct 12, 4:51 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT), the following > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by MatthewSlurpsHards > > <MatthewSlurpsHa...@chilledwatertech.com>:
> > >On Oct 11, 5:22 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:24:54 -0600, "Joey Jolley"
> Yes, a theory can be supported by edvidence, but there is no 'edvidence' supporting > Dawrnism findings.. > and the book he wrote "Origins of the Species" is just a book about..."observations"..just > filled with observations...nothing more..
darwin's book isn't the only work on evolution. you're stupid, even for a creationist, so may be unaware that scientists have done ALOT of work in the past 150 years on evolution
creationism? it's been 2000 years. when do you think YOU guys will come up with a theory?
> > > On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> > On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > > >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > > >> >> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > > >> >> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>:
> > >> >> >The Starmaker wrote: > > >> >> >> Dana Tweedy wrote: > > >> >> >> > The Starmaker wrote: > > >> >> >> > > They are the New Religion of Scientism. > > >> >> >> > No such thing.
> > >> >> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > > >> >> example of the genre.
> > >> >> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > > >> >> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > > >> >> knowledge) with no specific deity.
> > >> >> >That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism!
> > >> >> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > > >> >> otherwise.
> > >> > show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods.
> > >> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > > >> esoteric knowledge.
> > >> > if you > > >> > cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > > >> > know what they want are reasonable people.
> > >> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > > >> you.
> > > no, they arent.
> > Not coincidentally, people who believe in gods are, in the main, usually > > able to come up with a better retort than "nuh-uh!".
> oh really? then offer a valid and reliable reason to believe in any > gods.
What an, in all due respect, stupid reply. When has Garamond ever purported to believe in any gods or have any evidence for them? If he hasn't, then you owe just as much evidence of gods as he does. Can you argue that your failure to realize this doesn't reveal you to be stupid?
(snip baby whining)
A person with a rotten personality is inferior to one who is mistaken about matters of fact. that is why Nashton is your peer.
> > On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 2009-11-02, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... > >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> > >> >> <q> > >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with > >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for > >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of > >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. > >> >> </q>
> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically > >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
> > no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
> ....of an intellectual competition. We need to measure something in > competitions in order to declare a winner. In races we measure speed. > In weighlifting we measure weight lifted. In intellectual competitions, > we measure..... intellect.
> I can see why you would be unfamiliar with the process.
> > since that is what YOU WERE TOO > > STUPID TO THINK OF ON YOUR OWN. remember, lying idiot?
> I think I recall suggesting GRE scores and publications in the > peer-reviewed literature. Even you figured out that this > probably wouldn't put you in the best light.
> ><snip further dishonesty meant to cover the original dishonesty>
> Did you give up on the chess problem I gave you? I'll post the > solution, but I don't want to spoil it for you if you're still > working on it.
I already tore him limb from limb in a contest of personality.
Then i won the bonus point when he failed to admit my victory.
> > On Nov 2, 3:29 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... > >> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> > >> >> >> <q> > >> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with > >> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for > >> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of > >> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. > >> >> >> </q>
> >> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
> >> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically > >> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
> >> > no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
> >> ....of an intellectual competition.
> > which doesnt mean it measures intelligence, moron. races dont measure > > "speed." you cant tell how fast a person runs by knowing that he won 5 > > out of 7 races.
> But you can measure who is /faster/.
> This is a really handy idea called "relative measurement", as opposed > to "absolute measurement". In competitions, the relative measure is > more important. You said it yourself: you're a bad chess player, > but /relative to/ Eric, because you consider yourself to be smarter > than him, you would beat him in chess.
> Likewise, your GRE scores (should you ever get around to trying to > get into grad school) are an absolute score that is useless in > isolation. You're competing against other potential students, and > the university will check to see how your scores compare with other > students and rank you accordingly.
> I'm going to assume that you understand this and that it's simply > the gibbering fury you work yourself into when you reply to my > posts that prevents you from acknowledging it.
> > get it yet, or are you going to just lie more?
> The chess problem I gave you is by no means impossible. Want > another week with it?
I don't remember what my actual GRE score was from the 70s, but I was 92nd percientile, for what that's worth.
> > > On Nov 2, 3:29 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > > >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> > >> >> >> >> <snip>
> > >> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > > >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > > >> >> >> >> >like i said.
> > >> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > > >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > > >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > > >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> > >> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > > >> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> > >> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... > > >> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> > > >> >> >> <q> > > >> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with > > >> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for > > >> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of > > >> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. > > >> >> >> </q>
> > >> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
> > >> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically > > >> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
> > >> > no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
> > >> ....of an intellectual competition.
> > > which doesnt mean it measures intelligence, moron. races dont measure > > > "speed." you cant tell how fast a person runs by knowing that he won 5 > > > out of 7 races.
> > But you can measure who is /faster/.
> > This is a really handy idea called "relative measurement", as opposed > > to "absolute measurement". In competitions, the relative measure is > > more important. You said it yourself: you're a bad chess player, > > but /relative to/ Eric, because you consider yourself to be smarter > > than him, you would beat him in chess.
> what do you suppose would enable me to beat him in chess besides my > intellect?
> On Oct 29, 5:18 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > snexwrote: > > > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> snexwrote: > > >>> On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > > >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > > >>>>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. > > >>>>>>>>>>> No such thing. > > >>>>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > > >>>>>>>> example of the genre. > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html > > >>>>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, > > >>>>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; > > >>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > > >>>>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > > >>>>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > > >>>>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. > > >>>>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! > > >>>>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > > >>>>>>>> otherwise. > > >>>>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. > > >>>>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > > >>>>>> esoteric knowledge. > > >>>>>>> if you > > >>>>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > > >>>>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. > > >>>>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > > >>>>>> you. > > >>>>> no, they arent. > > >>>>>> Why is that? > > >>>>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most > > >>>>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe > > >>>>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what > > >>>>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the > > >>>>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually > > >>>>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to > > >>>>> reliable methods of discovery. > > >>>> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. > > >>>> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- > > >>>> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is > > >>>> entirely reasonable. > > >>> maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him > > >>> on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to > > >>> popularity fallacy. > > >> Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for > > >> the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more > > >> reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to > > >> be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for > > >> "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations > > >> correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the > > >> reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> > > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > > > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > > > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > > > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> > > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
> > Then nothing is.
> no, youre just another dishonest shit who will lie for jesus all day > long. it was an appeal to popularity. just admit it. why will you > accept any tripe, no matter how stupid, as long as it defends theism? > why dont you just jump on the creationism boat right now and save > yourself the time?
That is why snex is just a fundamentalist simpleton in a cheap coat of paint: to the Pagani and the Nashtons, everyone that argues with them is an atheist. To snex, everyone that argues with him is theist.
snex wrote: > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> snexwrote: >>> On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker >>>>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. >>>>>>>>>>> No such thing. >>>>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect >>>>>>>> example of the genre. >>>>>>>>>> http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html >>>>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, >>>>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism >>>>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism >>>>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than >>>>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. >>>>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! >>>>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much >>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. >>>>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more >>>>>> esoteric knowledge. >>>>>>> if you >>>>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to >>>>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. >>>>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than >>>>>> you. >>>>> no, they arent. >>>>>> Why is that? >>>>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most >>>>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe >>>>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what >>>>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the >>>>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually >>>>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to >>>>> reliable methods of discovery. >>>> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. >>>> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- >>>> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is >>>> entirely reasonable. >>> maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him >>> on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to >>> popularity fallacy. >> Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for >> the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more >> reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to >> be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for >> "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations >> correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the >> reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
In these posts, you seem to be equating reasonableness with factual truth.
And that's wrong.
One can start from certain axioms that are taken as true. Then one can build a system of deductions (theorems) from those axioms, by following principles of logic. That's entirely a good use of the human capacity for reason.
Now if a believer wants to take the existence of God as an *axiom*, he can be perfectly reasonable, even flawlessly logical, in making deductions and inferences from that axiom.
If an atheist takes the non-existence of God as an axiom, he can make his own deductions from that as well.
It's like the parallel postulate in geometry. Take it as axiomatically true, and you end up with Euclidean geometry. Take it as axiomatically false, and you end up with non-Euclidean geometry.
Now which better maps on to the factual analysis of the Universe in which we live? Non-Euclidean geometry helps analyze the curvature of space-time. But that doesn't make non-euclidean geometry "true." It just means it's a useful tool for describing the space-time continuum. It doesn't make Euclidean geometry "false."
So I argue that both believers in God and non-believers can each use reason to deduce things from their respective axiom systems. The argument comes in when we try to determine which deductions of which axiom systems best explain the empirical data we have about the universe.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:52:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >wrote:
>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>> >wrote: >>>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... >>>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> >>>> >> >> <q> >>>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with >>>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for >>>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of >>>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. >>>> >> >> </q>
>>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
>>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically >>>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
>>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
>>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual >>>> competition" (your words),
>>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual >>>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your >>>words).
>>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual >>competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those >>words as a response when the subject was the measurement of >>intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
>>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am >>>using?
>>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess >>master?
>Al Gore Rhythms?
Further evasion of the question noted. Keep digging, Sparky. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Nov 4, 12:53 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:01:50 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >On Nov 2, 4:24 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:13:52 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >On Nov 2, 12:11 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Okt, 13:42,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> > > snexwrote: >> >> >> > > > On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared >> >> >> > > >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker >> >> >> > > >>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> No such thing. >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect >> >> >> > > >>>>>> example of the genre. >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism >> >> >> > > >>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than >> >> >> > > >>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! >> >> >> > > >>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much >> >> >> > > >>>>>> otherwise. >> >> >> > > >>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. >> >> >> > > >>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more >> >> >> > > >>>> esoteric knowledge. >> >> >> > > >>>>> if you >> >> >> > > >>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to >> >> >> > > >>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. >> >> >> > > >>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than >> >> >> > > >>>> you. >> >> >> > > >>> no, they arent. >> >> >> > > >>>> Why is that? >> >> >> > > >>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most >> >> >> > > >>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe >> >> >> > > >>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what >> >> >> > > >>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the >> >> >> > > >>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually >> >> >> > > >>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to >> >> >> > > >>> reliable methods of discovery. >> >> >> > > >> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. >> >> >> > > >> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- >> >> >> > > >> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is >> >> >> > > >> entirely reasonable.
>> >> >> > > > maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him >> >> >> > > > on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to >> >> >> > > > popularity fallacy.
>> >> >> > > Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for >> >> >> > > the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more >> >> >> > > reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to >> >> >> > > be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for >> >> >> > > "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations >> >> >> > > correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the >> >> >> > > reasonableness of the belief in gods.
>> >> >> > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the >> >> >> > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the >> >> >> > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, >> >> >> > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
>> >> >> > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
>> >> >> Your reading skills are positively Paganoesque. An appeal to >> >> >> popularity would be the claim that theism is true because many people >> >> >> are theists. That would be nonsense. The claim that, on average, >> >> >> theists are as reasonable as non-theists is an empirical claim. I >> >> >> think it's probably true (you probably balance out one or two Paganos >> >> >> or Nahtons all by yourself), but even if it isn't, it's not an appeal >> >> >> to popularity.
>> >> >read the claim again. "lots of people believe it, therefore they are >> >> >more reasonable" is what it means.
>> >> *You* read the claim again. At no point did he claim >> >> causation, only that most people, believers or not, are more >> >> reasonable than you. And your posts bear out his claim; if >> >> you are at or above the mean for "reasonableness" then >> >> Britney Spears is at or above the mean for "mature".
>> >im not the one believing in magic men rising from the dead.
>> Lack of relevant response noted. Again.
>its perfectly relevant. the belief in magic men rising from the dead >is entirely unreasonable.
....but the claim that those who believe this are nonetheless more reasonable *in general* than you is the one at issue. And based on your posts the claim is correct. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >> >> >> >like i said.
>> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>> >and it isnt? what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>dont evade the question, moron.
It's not an evasion. You claim that chess is an "intellectual competition", and therefore is a valid way to compare intelligence between two players. If that is true, I want to know if you think Big Blue is more intelligent than the humans it consistently defeated. You seem to have some sort of problem addressing this question. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:12:20 -0600, the following appeared > in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:52:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>> >wrote: >>>>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>>>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>>>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>>>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>>>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>>>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>>>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... >>>>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> >>>>> >> >> <q> >>>>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with >>>>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for >>>>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of >>>>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. >>>>> >> >> </q>
>>>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
>>>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically >>>>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
>>>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
>>>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual >>>>> competition" (your words),
>>>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual >>>>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your >>>>words).
>>>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual >>>competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those >>>words as a response when the subject was the measurement of >>>intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
>>>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am >>>>using?
>>>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess >>>master?
>>Al Gore Rhythms?
> Further evasion of the question noted. Keep digging, Sparky.
> On 2009-11-05, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:12:20 -0600, the following appeared > > in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>:
> >>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:52:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> > >>wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following > >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
> >>>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following > >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >>>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >>>>> >wrote: > >>>>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >>>>> >> > wrote: > >>>>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >>>>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >>>>> >> >> >> <snip>
> >>>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >>>>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >>>>> >> >> >> >like i said.
> >>>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >>>>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >>>>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >>>>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >>>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >>>>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >>>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... > >>>>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> > >>>>> >> >> <q> > >>>>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with > >>>>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for > >>>>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of > >>>>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. > >>>>> >> >> </q>
> >>>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
> >>>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically > >>>>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
> >>>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
> >>>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual > >>>>> competition" (your words),
> >>>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual > >>>>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your > >>>>words).
> >>>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual > >>>competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those > >>>words as a response when the subject was the measurement of > >>>intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
> >>>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am > >>>>using?
> >>>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess > >>>master?
> >>Al Gore Rhythms?
> > Further evasion of the question noted. Keep digging, Sparky.
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:12:20 -0600, the following appeared >in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:52:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>> >wrote: >>>>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>>>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>>>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>>>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>>>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>>>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>>>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... >>>>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> >>>>> >> >> <q> >>>>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with >>>>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for >>>>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of >>>>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. >>>>> >> >> </q>
>>>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
>>>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically >>>>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
>>>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
>>>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual >>>>> competition" (your words),
>>>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual >>>>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your >>>>words).
>>>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual >>>competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those >>>words as a response when the subject was the measurement of >>>intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
>>>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am >>>>using?
>>>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess >>>master?
>>Al Gore Rhythms?
>Further evasion of the question noted. Keep digging, Sparky.
I'm not Sparky (snex, I assume), nor do i play him on usenet. ;) I think you may find the silence to be deafening, with regards to your question, though.
If you say it fast, it might make sense, then again, you may need to imbibe in 3 or 4 fingers of single malt sc...flu remedy.
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:53:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:12:20 -0600, the following appeared >>in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:52:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), the following >>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>>On Nov 2, 4:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:11:10 -0800 (PST), the following >>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>>> >On Nov 2, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>>> >wrote: >>>>>> >> On 2009-11-02,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >> > On Oct 29, 12:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >>>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> On 2009-10-29,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>>>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>>>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>>>>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>>>>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>>>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>>>>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>>>>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>>>>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>>>>> >> >> > show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>>>>> >> >> > measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>>>>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ce6c0f3512d05f9?dmod... >>>>>> >> >> Message-ID: <9d805d4e-f0f6-4f94-8641-7e3674716...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> >>>>>> >> >> <q> >>>>>> >> >> or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with >>>>>> >> >> many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for >>>>>> >> >> one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of >>>>>> >> >> root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him. >>>>>> >> >> </q>
>>>>>> >> > that quote doesnt state what i asked for.
>>>>>> >> You have suggested chess as an "intellectual competition" specifically >>>>>> >> to measure your intelligence wrt another poster.
>>>>>> >no moron, i gave it as AN EXAMPLE
>>>>>> An example of *what*? If not of an "intellectual >>>>>> competition" (your words),
>>>>>no moron, those are not my words. i said that it WAS an intellectual >>>>>competition. what it is NOT is a "way to measure intelligence" (your >>>>>words).
>>>>You seem to be confused; the phrase "intellectual >>>>competition" is indeed your words. And since you used those >>>>words as a response when the subject was the measurement of >>>>intelligence, what is anyone to think you meant?
>>>>>if i dont play chess with my intellect, then what do you suppose i am >>>>>using?
>>>>I dunno; what's Big Blue using when it beats a human chess >>>>master?
>>>Al Gore Rhythms?
>>Further evasion of the question noted. Keep digging, Sparky.
>I'm not Sparky (snex, I assume), nor do i play him on usenet. >;)
Yeah, sorry about that. :-(
>I think you may find the silence to be deafening, with regards to your >question, though.
It always is with snex. If he can't twist it into something about religion he's usually rendered mute. And if it shows he's wrong he goes into attack mode, Chihuahua version.
>If you say it fast, it might make sense, then again, you may need to >imbibe in 3 or 4 fingers of single malt sc...flu remedy.
Aargghhh... --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following >appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >> <snip>
>>> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>> >> >> >like i said.
>>> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>>> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >>> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>>> >and it isnt? what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>>> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>>dont evade the question, moron.
>It's not an evasion. You claim that chess is an >"intellectual competition", and therefore is a valid way to >compare intelligence between two players. If that is true, I >want to know if you think Big Blue is more intelligent than >the humans it consistently defeated. You seem to have some >sort of problem addressing this question.
[crickets...] --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:50:52 -0700, the following appeared >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>>On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>>> >> >> <snip>
>>>> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>>> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>>> >> >> >like i said.
>>>> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>>> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>>> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>>> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>>> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>>> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>>> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>>>> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >>>> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>>>> >and it isnt? what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>>>> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>>>dont evade the question, moron.
>>It's not an evasion. You claim that chess is an >>"intellectual competition", and therefore is a valid way to >>compare intelligence between two players. If that is true, I >>want to know if you think Big Blue is more intelligent than >>the humans it consistently defeated. You seem to have some >>sort of problem addressing this question.
>[crickets...]
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:03:24 GMT, the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>:
>On 2009-11-12, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:47:31 -0700, the following appeared >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> And snex runs and hides again...
>He's learning when it's best to walk away, so I suppose >that's progress.
Of a sort. I guess. However, I'd hesitate to label as "progress" behavior which embeds him more firmly in the fundie camp; this is, after all, one of their defining "tactics". --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
> >> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a > >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
> >> >and it isnt? what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
> >dont evade the question, moron.
> It's not an evasion.
yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
|
