LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=643)

Gattigap 02-15-2005 05:44 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Great. Here comes the Rawls debate.
So?

Sure, it involved one bull-headed participant, yet still I felt the conversation simply floated. The Lawtalkers Gods will ultimately smile upon it.

You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 05:45 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
when most people say evolution they mean natural selection as a way of changing species plus some scientific basis to the beginnings of life (ie god didn't do it). You really can't intelligently argue that NS causes species to evolve, and that is what has been proven to the extent any part of evolution can be proven- I accept this part- okay- bob moths et al.

But on the "how did things start" part there are huge gaps- how did the first cell start? there are at least theories on this, although most people in ths field will tell you its a billion to one shot- okay the world has been around for billions of years so that's possible.

But there are other parts where I can't even find a theory- how did those single celled animals become multi- celled? How did an organism with a few cells develop organ systems? Early organisms simply split- how did sexual reproduction come from that?

I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday. I am sorry but you are way off here.

1)You are correct that "natural selection" does not cause species to evolve. Natural phenomena favors certain mutations leading to change. No cause. It just happens.

2) There are people that think the earth is flat. There are people that think that the sun revolves around the earth. There are creationists. All of these people are really arguing from the same irrational position.

3) How did the first cell start? Are you kidding? In nature almost every step in this evolutionary chain still exist. Proteins to quasi- cells to simple cells to complex cells. The million to one shot was the lightning that struck the primoridial soup creating protein chains.

4) Single celled to mulitcelled - Again -are you kidding? Again in nature there is an example of every step of the way. From cooperating cells, to causally linked cells, to connected cells etc. There are strong theories on all these developments.
Answer #1- oh okay- sorry i guess you have proven it-
Answer #2- geez at least most people cite to Ty
Answer #3 dimwit- the fact that there are intermediate steps now doesn't explain how they could have first come about-

Spanky 02-15-2005 05:46 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Maybe science started it- maybe an intergallactic cruise ship emptied it waste here and we sprung from that or maybe it was "god."

I don't know and I only pick on people who think they do when they pick on others who think they do, but different.
Science clearly did not start it. But the rest of your statement has merit.

Shape Shifter 02-15-2005 05:46 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?
And here we'd gone almost a full day without bringing up Clinton.

Replaced_Texan 02-15-2005 05:48 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And here we'd gone almost a full day without bringing up Clinton.
I still wonder why Chlorox 2 sales didn't go up after that whole debacle.

not_penske 02-15-2005 05:48 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky


I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday.
dissent. Again, I AM not penske.

Honestly, Pensk, you seem to be protesting a bit too much, this is actually an original concept, ScienceGuy Sock. Way to keep Hank on his toes.

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 05:49 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
So?

Sure, it involved one bull-headed participant, yet still I felt the conversation simply floated. The Lawtalkers Gods will ultimately smile upon it.

You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?
I am confident we can avoid a Rawls resurrection- remember we haven't had it come back even though almost every SS post reminds us of the Veil of Ignorance.

Shape Shifter 02-15-2005 05:52 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I am confident we can avoid a Rawls resurrection- remember we haven't had it come back even though almost every SS post reminds us of the Veil of Ignorance.
Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.

Spanky 02-15-2005 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Have you read Clarke's book?
Yes - but I don't have an opinion. In a he said she said its hard to know the truth - there is always shades of Grey. I am a big fan of Dr. Rice, so I also have a strong bias. I was very interested in your exchange. The only thing I would say is that although failure is an orphan this failure had many authors.

Replaced_Texan 02-15-2005 05:53 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.
Lord help us all.

bilmore 02-15-2005 05:54 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Lord help us all.
I think that was Hank's point.

Spanky 02-15-2005 05:58 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Answer #3 dimwit- the fact that there are intermediate steps now doesn't explain how they could have first come about-
It all comes down to steps. Evolution is just steps of mutation. So if you have all the steps you don't need a theory. You have a map of exactly what happened. The big mysteries, and where you need the theories, is when all the steps do not exist or there is no fossil or any kind of record of the intermediate steps.

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 06:03 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.
Ask yourself why are we here?

Did not your persona evolve in some way from whatever sock first linked to bridgeoflove.com?

Can Fluffy really claim to not have evolved from patentgreedy?

and I have been pegged as being a plated sock since early on.

So we can hardly argue that random mutation causes individual socks to develop and move on, but we can only move from what was there before.

I hardly think you would posit that gattigap could come from the sock that was blue triangle-

And so, I ask you do you believe that an entity named leagle created this place over a period of days- and that she had falses starts and needed to begin anew- does that make her creation any less miraculous?

Gattigap 02-15-2005 06:06 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I hardly think you would posit that gattigap could come from the sock that was blue triangle-
Even when suggesting the negative, the risk of association and its scarring taint cannot stand. Guardez!

futbol fan 02-15-2005 06:14 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
It all comes down to steps. Evolution is just steps of mutation. So if you have all the steps you don't need a theory. You have a map of exactly what happened. The big mysteries, and where you need the theories, is when all the steps do not exist or there is no fossil or any kind of record of the intermediate steps.
Spanky, Hank is a lot like my cousin who doesn't believe Americans ever walked on the moon. I can protest all I want, but because I wasn't there to see them driving around in the little golf cart, my opinion means nothing. Plus also there was apparently a show on Fox about how it was all a big setup.

I can't prove they walked on the moon, ergo everyone's opinion on the subject is equally valid and I am a condescending elitist to suggest otherwise. This is a very neat little argument and can be applied to almost any historical situation.

Unless you can show Hank polaroids of you standing in the primordial ooze as the lightining hits, you don't have a chance. But then again we know that photos can lie, too.

Replaced_Texan 02-15-2005 06:15 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Even when suggesting the negative, the risk of association and its scarring taint cannot stand. Guardez!
For the love of God, do not challenge him to an economics duel. Anything else, I beg of you. Anything but economics. I'm not sure we can handle another econ duel.

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 06:16 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Spanky, Hank is a lot like my cousin who doesn't believe Americans ever walked on the moon. I can protest all I want, but because I wasn't there to see them driving around in the little golf cart, my opinion means nothing. Plus also there was apparently a show on Fox about how it was all a big setup.

I can't prove they walked on the moon, ergo everyone's opinion on the subject is equally valid and I am a condescending elitist to suggest otherwise. This is a very neat little argument and can be applied to almost any historical situation.

Unless you can show Hank polaroids of you standing in the primordial ooze as the lightining hits, you don't have a chance. But then again we know that photos can lie, too.
One good thing about this guy coming back- we now know how mistaken we were when our image of TROLL was fluffy or NotMe-

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:17 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
For the love of God, do not challenge him to an economics duel. Anything else, I beg of you. Anything but economics. I'm not sure we can handle another econ duel.
Did someone say econ duel?

Shape Shifter 02-15-2005 06:17 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Spanky, Hank is a lot like my cousin who doesn't believe Americans ever walked on the moon. I can protest all I want, but because I wasn't there to see them driving around in the little golf cart, my opinion means nothing. Plus also there was apparently a show on Fox about how it was all a big setup.

I can't prove they walked on the moon, ergo everyone's opinion on the subject is equally valid and I am a condescending elitist to suggest otherwise. This is a very neat little argument and can be applied to almost any historical situation.

Unless you can show Hank polaroids of you standing in the primordial ooze as the lightining hits, you don't have a chance. But then again we know that photos can lie, too.
Who was the cameraman who shot the film of Armstrong's first steps on the moon?

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:17 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One good thing about this guy coming back- we now know how mistaken we were when our image of TROLL was fluffy or NotMe-
Ironweed didn't have to return for us to see that you are a halfbreed troll.

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 06:19 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Ironweed didn't have to return for us to see that you are a halfbreed troll.
cool. truce is over- and I've got a boat load of fat jokes built up.......

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:21 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
cool. truce is over- and I've got a boat load of fat jokes built up.......
Heaven forfend!

Hank Chinaski 02-15-2005 06:23 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Heaven forfend!
Ain't no solace in your religous fictions- I will attack you with the inevitability of the big bang.

Spanky 02-15-2005 06:24 PM

There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?
Me? A couple weeks.

futbol fan 02-15-2005 06:28 PM

All due Respect
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who was the cameraman who shot the film of Armstrong's first steps on the moon?
Exactly. This is why I believe that there is no war in Iraq. In fact, I don't believe there is a place called "Iraq," because I have never been there and the pictures are all obviously poorly-photoshopped fakes taken in Mexico somewhere.*

The moral here is that you can never be too careful when some egghead starts trying to sell you a bill of goods.

* Been to Tijajuana, but I can't vouch for the other bits now that I think about it . . .

Gattigap 02-15-2005 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?
Yes. I've commented before about this site collapsing under the weight of its self-referential ways. It's an affectation we need to control better.

The best way to get it is simply to ask. Or, just read it for a while. After a short time, you're immersed in the storyline, and you'll notice that the themes become repetitive, somewhat like a soap opera.

Eventually, you'll recognize Hank as James Stenbeck in ATWT, and that some other participants will work their way through friendships and romances that they cybernetically (or literally) consummate. Unfortunately, eventually such characters run through the entire remaining cast, and watching their thrashing about at the realization that there really is noone else to fuck, and then turn on and torch their cyberloves with the searing pain of a thousand vagina denatas,* is somewhat sad.

But I digress. Hang around, it'll all become clear soon enough.

Gattigap










*Shit! Did it again. Apologies.

Replaced_Texan 02-15-2005 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?
This board was founded about two years ago. We're an offshoot of the greedy boards over at infirmation.com, which were started in 1999 or 2000. There are some people who've been around since the yahoo days of the late 90s. I've been posting with these people since 2000. I can quit anytime I want to. I promise.

etfg

Shape Shifter 02-15-2005 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?
I'm the newber. I started some time in '02. I'm not sure how long the rest of these losers have been at it.

futbol fan 02-15-2005 06:44 PM

Whatever Happened To Baby Shapey?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm the newber. I started some time in '02. I'm not sure how long the rest of these losers have been at it.
Strong words from someone with over 5000 posts. And it looks like you ain't the newber anymore, either.

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes. I've commented before about this site collapsing under the weight of its self-referential ways. It's an affectation we need to control better.

The best way to get it is simply to ask. Or, just read it for a while. After a short time, you're immersed in the storyline, and you'll notice that the themes become repetitive, somewhat like a soap opera.

Eventually, you'll recognize Hank as James Stenbeck in ATWT, and that some other participants will work their way through friendships and romances that they cybernetically (or literally) consummate. Unfortunately, eventually such characters run through the entire remaining cast, and watching their thrashing about at the realization that there really is noone else to fuck, and then turn on and torch their cyberloves with the searing pain of a thousand vagina denatas,* is somewhat sad.

But I digress. Hang around, it'll all become clear soon enough.

Gattigap










*Shit! Did it again. Apologies.
dtb does not seem to be around, but if anyone else can answer -- isn't "dentata" plural?

sgtclub 02-15-2005 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - but I don't have an opinion. In a he said she said its hard to know the truth
That's easy. It's what ever Ty's blogger of the day says it is.

the ghost of Vince Foster 02-15-2005 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This board was founded about two years ago. We're an offshoot of the greedy boards over at infirmation.com, which were started in 1999 or 2000. There are some people who've been around since the yahoo days of the late 90s. I've been posting with these people since 2000. I can quit anytime I want to. I promise.

etfg
the politics board was invented in 11/2000. By penske. I was the 6th poster, 2nd if you count my DC Chef persona.

Also, the original Yahoo boards were preceded by greedy lawyer use groups on UUNET in the early 90s. I did not join until late 95 on the Prodigy.net newsgroups, obviously after my untimely murde.......suicide.

Gattigap 02-15-2005 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
dtb does not seem to be around, but if anyone else can answer -- isn't "dentata" plural?
Probably. I can't even spell it right, apparently.

Personally, I've not hung around them long enough to find out.

sgtclub 02-15-2005 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is so much insider stuff going on I can't understand half of what is being said. How long have you guys been doing this?
Funny you say that. I didn't realize how big of a loser I really was until I viewed it from an outsider's perspective.

ltl/fb 02-15-2005 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Probably. I can't even spell it right, apparently.

Personally, I've not hung around them long enough to find out.
It's not really a spelling error. More sort of a general linguistic naivete. It's sort of sweet.

Happy post-Valentine's Day,
fringey

P.S. Hank, where are my fat jokes?

ETA P.P.S. Our new monkey-spanking friend appears to have its/it's issues. That's way worse than dentatas. OOOOOHHHHHH maybe you are right, vagina dentata is singular, and I was thinking dentatae. Which looks stupid and like it should be the name of some slimy kind of creature, so I like the "s" plural better.

*sniff* I miss dtb.

Shape Shifter 02-15-2005 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's not really a spelling error. More sort of a general linguistic naivete. It's sort of sweet.

Happy post-Valentine's Day,
fringey

P.S. Hank, where are my fat jokes?

ETA P.P.S. Our new monkey-spanking friend appears to have its/it's issues. That's way worse than dentatas. OOOOOHHHHHH maybe you are right, vagina dentata is singular, and I was thinking dentatae. Which looks stupid and like it should be the name of some slimy kind of creature, so I like the "s" plural better.

*sniff* I miss dtb.
dentata means "toothed" or "having teeth." Vagina should have been pluralized, a al "attorneys general," to either "vaginas" or vaginae, depending on how pompous gatti was attempting to be.

Replaced_Texan 02-15-2005 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Probably. I can't even spell it right, apparently.

Personally, I've not hung around them long enough to find out.
Me either, but Shape Shifter says it's whithering experience.

Secret_Agent_Man 02-15-2005 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by megaloman
[Blah, Blah, Blah from Fluffy with a twist.]
Now, THIS is a nice sock, Hank.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-15-2005 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hang around, it'll all become clear soon enough.

Why are we assuming spanky is not a sock?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com