One of the most ironical movies ever
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Not necessarily - people vote for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily for the reasons you'd like.
True. But then consider this post[^] and the unusually high rating I've gotten on it, remembering that it's very hard for me to get a good rating on any post! I'm just saying that it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them? Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies, so it's a moot point. One would think that, owning the thread, I could simple cut and paste, but I can't.
The Grand Negus wrote:
it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them?
Why indeed? You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them?
Why indeed? You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Not a very elegant solution. If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so. I'm not into "work arounds".
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Not a very elegant solution. If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so. I'm not into "work arounds".
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were, and suggested a corrective course of action.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Not a very elegant solution.
About 3 or more years ago there were posts from the "Clickety Police". They mostly died out when some new javascript was added to automatically turn pasted URLs in to clickable links.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so.
A few months ago Chris admitted that his list of new features to add exceeded 200 items. People suggest new stuff all the time on the suggestions forum. Some things take more time than others to implement (such as the migration to .NET) and he has got general site admin to do also. Things will get better, they just take time.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were, and suggested a corrective course of action.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Not a very elegant solution.
About 3 or more years ago there were posts from the "Clickety Police". They mostly died out when some new javascript was added to automatically turn pasted URLs in to clickable links.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so.
A few months ago Chris admitted that his list of new features to add exceeded 200 items. People suggest new stuff all the time on the suggestions forum. Some things take more time than others to implement (such as the migration to .NET) and he has got general site admin to do also. Things will get better, they just take time.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were...
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion. Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head. The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs, and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were...
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion. Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head. The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs, and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion
I seem to have got a 5-vote for that. So, I'm not alone in thinking they are the rules.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head
No, I never claimed that.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs
The UK has an unwritten constitution - but everyone accepts what the constitution is.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will
Well, they've been fairly stable all the time I've been here. There have been attempts by some to impose their ideas, but it doesn't last long. It reverts back to the stable form that works well for most people. And most people prefer their religion in the Soapbox.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
Ilíon wrote:
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
That's a similarity, not a difference. ;-)
-
cleako wrote:
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things.
I'm saying that the "scientists" have a double standard: a bit of pattern in a radio transmission indicates intelligent design, but a massive amount of pattern all over the universe somehow does not.
The scientists long ago decided that they had a decent answer for the patterns throughout the universe and that was the Big Bang. The pattern in the radio transmission, however, indicates a different sound than that generated by celestial bodies. :-D
CleAkO
-
Ilíon wrote:
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
That's a similarity, not a difference. ;-)
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
"That's a similarity, not a difference. ;)" I am not the one who said "there's a difference ..." In fact, it was *you* who said that. But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God." That some persons may not want to admit that there is evidence (and, in fact, proof) that God exists is quite irrelevant to the truth of the matter. -- modified at 9:00 Saturday 24th February, 2007
-
And if it is a creator, we are naive to insist that its benevolent.
This statement was never false.
-
The scientists long ago decided that they had a decent answer for the patterns throughout the universe and that was the Big Bang. The pattern in the radio transmission, however, indicates a different sound than that generated by celestial bodies. :-D
CleAkO
CleAkO wrote:
The scientists long ago decided that they had a decent answer for the patterns throughout the universe and that was the Big Bang.
But it's not a decent answer, and it explains very little. Where did the energy come from? Where did the laws come from? Where did the universal constants come from? Etc.
CleAkO wrote:
The pattern in the radio transmission, however, indicates a different sound than that generated by celestial bodies.
True; and they take that to be an indication of intelligence. But they deny that the "sound generated by celestial bodies" indicates a similar thing. It's like a guy coming over to your house an insisting that your kitchen cupboard was clearly designed and made by someone, and then stubbornly denying that the house was designed and made in a similar way. If the cupboard is an artifact of intelligence, so is the house (by the same rules of thought).
-
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
"That's a similarity, not a difference. ;)" I am not the one who said "there's a difference ..." In fact, it was *you* who said that. But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God." That some persons may not want to admit that there is evidence (and, in fact, proof) that God exists is quite irrelevant to the truth of the matter. -- modified at 9:00 Saturday 24th February, 2007
Ilíon wrote:
But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God."
No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence.
-
Ilíon wrote:
But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God."
No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence.
Ilíon: "But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God."" Steve_Harris: "No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence." I did't say: "the existence of humanity [stands] as proof of the existence of [G]od" as a side note: *WHY* are you people so afraid of God that you can't even properly capitalize the word -- which you claim is meaningless -- when the context of your usage of the word demands capitalization? I said: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God" -- not some amorphous concept called "humanity," but you yourself; that you yourself as a self exist is the proof that God exists. And I also pointed out that this statement is the "bumper-sticker version" of it. Steve_Harris: "No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence." "Opinion?" "Unsafe extrapolation?" "No evidence?" You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just spouting off words that you think will sound impressive or intimidating. And, when these impressive words come back to bite you in the ass, you'll whine about the unfairness of it all. You want "opinion?" "There is no God" -- that is an opinion which can't be grounded in reason, and certainly can't be grounded with "evidence;" the statement can't be upgraded from "opinion" to "reasonably justified belief" So, it seems that according to the implicit logic of your statement, you do not have the right to believe that "There is no God" is a true statement. You want "opinion?" "There are no gods" (by which I mean the pagan gods, such as Zeus, etc) -- you can't even present a rational defense of that statement. I can, but you cannot -- your 'atheism' makes it impossible for you to do so. So, by the implicit logic of your statement, you do not even have the right to believe that "Zeus does not exist" is a true statement. You want "unsafe extrapolation?" Try this on for size: 'modern evolutionary theory.' This so-called theory is nothing but "unsafe extrapolation." You want "no evidence?" Where is your "evidence" that the God of the Bible does not exist? You have none, of course; it is utterly impossible, because logically impossible, to have evidence that God does not exist. Prediction:
-
Ilíon: "But, in any event, there *is* evidence that there is a God. To put the matter in bumper-sticker form: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God."" Steve_Harris: "No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence." I did't say: "the existence of humanity [stands] as proof of the existence of [G]od" as a side note: *WHY* are you people so afraid of God that you can't even properly capitalize the word -- which you claim is meaningless -- when the context of your usage of the word demands capitalization? I said: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God" -- not some amorphous concept called "humanity," but you yourself; that you yourself as a self exist is the proof that God exists. And I also pointed out that this statement is the "bumper-sticker version" of it. Steve_Harris: "No, taking the existence of humanity as proof of the existence of god is an opinion, based on an unsafe extrapolation. There is no evidence." "Opinion?" "Unsafe extrapolation?" "No evidence?" You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just spouting off words that you think will sound impressive or intimidating. And, when these impressive words come back to bite you in the ass, you'll whine about the unfairness of it all. You want "opinion?" "There is no God" -- that is an opinion which can't be grounded in reason, and certainly can't be grounded with "evidence;" the statement can't be upgraded from "opinion" to "reasonably justified belief" So, it seems that according to the implicit logic of your statement, you do not have the right to believe that "There is no God" is a true statement. You want "opinion?" "There are no gods" (by which I mean the pagan gods, such as Zeus, etc) -- you can't even present a rational defense of that statement. I can, but you cannot -- your 'atheism' makes it impossible for you to do so. So, by the implicit logic of your statement, you do not even have the right to believe that "Zeus does not exist" is a true statement. You want "unsafe extrapolation?" Try this on for size: 'modern evolutionary theory.' This so-called theory is nothing but "unsafe extrapolation." You want "no evidence?" Where is your "evidence" that the God of the Bible does not exist? You have none, of course; it is utterly impossible, because logically impossible, to have evidence that God does not exist. Prediction:
Ilíon wrote:
I said: "*YOU* are the proof that there is a God" -- not some amorphous concept called "humanity," but you yourself; that you yourself as a self exist is the proof that God exists.
How does my personal existence differ from the existence of humanity? I am part of humanity, and so are you and so is everyone. If God created me then he created all of humanity, and you should be just as happy to use the existence of humanity as proof of God as you are to use my own personal existence as evidence. There is plenty of evidence to back up evolutionary theory. Evolution is visible in the world today. There are indeed gaps in the fossil record, but invoking God just because there are gaps in the record is not a logical conclusion; the logical conclusion is simply that we haven't found the records YET which would fill that gap. Saying that there must be a God because there are things we cannot explain simply creates a "God of the Gaps", the necessity for which becomes narrower and narrower as scientific explanations for the gaps accumulate over time as new evidence is collected. I see plenty of evidence in the world around me that evolution exists, is a fact, and has shaped all living organisms. I, personally, see no evidence of God in the world around me, nor do I see a need for God for the universe to be the way it is. We've clearly got totally opposing views here and clearly neither is going to convince the other so shall we shake hands and call it a truce?
-
"And if it is a creator, we are naive to insist that its benevolent." Whether the Creator is benevolent is quite a different issue from the question: "Is there a Creator-God?"
So, I wasn't speaking to that. Are we stuck on this? You seem aiming to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your version.
This statement was never false.
-
So, I wasn't speaking to that. Are we stuck on this? You seem aiming to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your version.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You seem aiming to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your version.
And this tells us all we need to know about you. You're "open-minded" ... this means that you are free to disagree with me at any time for whatever reason, even when your disagreement is illogical or even irrational, but if I disagree with you, then I have a character flaw.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You seem aiming to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your version.
And this tells us all we need to know about you. You're "open-minded" ... this means that you are free to disagree with me at any time for whatever reason, even when your disagreement is illogical or even irrational, but if I disagree with you, then I have a character flaw.
I wasn't questioning the existence of a Creator-God. Just raising another topic of consideration. You brought the topic back to what you are focused on. What is it that I'm not open-minded to? And what did you disagree to? I also didn't disagree with you. So your assumptions in this single post are illogical, and even irrational, since we're using these terms.
Ilíon wrote:
And this tells us all we need to know about you.
Who is this "us" and "we"? Are you typing in committee?
This statement was never false.