author: BeamMeUpScotty

subject:
Re: Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun
 regulations

text:
On 12/21/2011 11:43 AM, [email] wrote:

You are an asshole.    So dense that there is no where to even begin
answering you, you obviously can't grasp the concepts.

Yes that is correct....  and when it fits others beliefs they apply it.

And when your beliefs are applied that are unconstitutional I point it
out.  And you can do the same to me.   That's called freedom, why do you
fear it and hate it so much?

--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.


author: JohnJohnsn

subject: Re: I'll show you mine if you show us yours?

text:
On Dec 23, 10:09 am, Narcissistic Personality Disorder-afflicted
Abderian Simpleton 69-year-old Vapid City, South Dakotan Gary Richard
"Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles <[email]>, Left-Wing
Lying Liberal Socialist LOSER Democrat™  (est. 2010-11-02)
Propagandist, wrote:

Show us where the United States Sentencing Commission [http://
www.ussc.gov] "was given the express duty to `review law' and
determine the law in relation to the constitution," Gary.

You made the claim, now back it up.

Again, Gary: show us where the United States Sentencing Commission
"has been given the power to `review law' and decide what the
`constittutin means."

When are you Looney Liberal Propagandists going to learn that acronyms
have meanings?

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're
 ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan

If you mean the Supreme Court of the United States [http://
www.supremecourt.gov], the proper acronym is SCotUS (or SCOTUS, if you
prefer).

See if you can figure out _this_ acronym, Gary:

STFUAGTFAYLLYI

"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
 to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
 Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry


text:
On Dec 26, 1:50 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<[email]> wrote:

The `Domino Effect'

Lawyers write laws in such a way that it takes even _more_ lawyers to
figure out what they _actually_ say.

Or:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
-- Dick The Butcher, Shakespeare's `Henry VI, part 2'
http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

"History is indeed the witness of the times, the light of truth."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero


text:
On Dec 26, 12:44 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Vote 1999
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

S.900: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Colloquial name: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
Other Titles:
-- ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999
-- Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999
-- Prime Act
-- Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999
Public Law 106–102, Stat. 113 Stat. 1338
Full title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services
industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of
banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and
for other purposes.
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov 12, 1999
Co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act: Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas),
Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act


text:
On Dec 25, 1:51 pm, Narcissistic Personality Disorder-afflicted
Abderian Simpleton 69-year-old Vapid City, South Dakotan Gary Richard
"Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles <[email]>, Left-Wing
Lying Liberal Socialist LOSER Democrat™  (est. 2010-11-02)
Propagandist, wrote:

These are your words, Gary; not mine:

"What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?"
 -- Gary Richard "Yoorghis IDIOT" Roselles

"Jim Crow" laws were the products of your fellow DEMOCRATS, Gary:

Origins of Jim Crow laws

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided
civil rights protection in the U.S. South for "freedmen" – the African
Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, Democrats
gradually returned to power in the Southern states, sometimes as a
result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated
opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting.
Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for
years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaigns. In 1877,
a national compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential
election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn
from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every
Southern state. These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer
governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from
the white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the
establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration
and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political
participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease.
Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states,
starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that
effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor
whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension
tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. Grandfather
clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Origins_of_Jim_Crow_laws

Where is your evidence of "Reagan's perjury," Gary?

Bush was so "stupid" that he managed to own a professional baseball
team (MLB's Texas Rangers), get himself elected as Texas Governor
(twice) and as POTUS (also twice!.

What's "stupendous achievement" has your "brilliance" generated, Gary?

Your "BDS" has progressed past a mere obsession, Gary; it has fully
rotted your brain.

Here's your messiah Barack Hussein Obama II's "change" you are so
proud of, Gary:

                                                   January  January  %
chg
                                                     2009       2011
Avg.. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
(Source: 1)                                  $1.83       $3.44
84%

Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
(Source: 2)                               $43..48      $99.02  127.7%

Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
(Source: 2)                               $38..74     $91.38  135.9%

Gold: London (per troy oz.)
(Source: 2)                              $853.25  $1,369.50  60.5%

Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
(Source: 2)                                 $3.56  $6.33  78.1%

Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
(Source: 2)                                 $9.66  $13..75  42.3%

Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob
(Source: 2)                              $13..37  $35..39  164.7%

Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
(Source: 3)                                    7.6%  9.4%    23.7%

Unemployment rate, blacks
(Source: 3)                                   12.6%  15.8%  25.4%

Number of unemployed
(Source: 3)                            11,616,000  14,485,000  24.7%

Number of fed. Employees
(Source: 3)                              2,779,000   2,840,000  2.2%

Real median household income
(Source: 4)                                 $50,112  $49,777  -0.7%

Number of food stamp recipients
(Source: 5)                              31,983,716   43,200,878
35.1%

Number of unemployment benefit recipients
(Source: 6)                                7,526,598  9,193,838  22.2%

Number of long-term unemployed
(Source: 3)                               2,600,000  6,400,000  146.2%

Poverty rate, individuals
(Source: 4)                                     13.2%   14.3%   8.3%

People in poverty in U.S.
(Source: 4)                               39,800,000  43,600,000  9.5%

U.S.. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
(Source: 10)                                     5   9   n/a

Present Situation Index
(Source: 11)                                      29.9   23.5  -21.4%

Failed banks
(Source: 12)                                       140   164   17.1%

U.S.. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
(Source: 2)                                     89.76   82.03  -8.6%

U.S.. Money supply, M1, in billions
(Source: 13)                                 1,575.1   1,865.7  18.4%

U.S.. Money supply, M2, in billions
(Source: 13)                                 8,310.9   8,852.3   6.5%

National debt, in trillions
(Source: 14)                                $10..627   $14..052
32.2%

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated
national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest
of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically
speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car
rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing
1,755 MPH!

Sources:
(1)  U.S. Energy Information Administration;
(2) Wall Street Journal;
(3) Bureau of Labor Statistics;
(4) Census Bureau;
(5)USDA;
(6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor;
(7) FHFA;
(8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller;
(9)RealtyTrac;
(10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ;
(11) The Conference Board;
(12) FDIC;
(13) Federal Reserve;
(14)  U.S. Treasury

"Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the
same reason."
 ~José Maria de Eça de Queiroz, translated from Portuguese


text:
On 12/26/2011 2:23 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

So why did Fannie and Freddie drag down the entire system?  They refused
to expand their loan base at first, until congress made threats...

Two governments are at work, the one that writes laws and follows the
constitution above the board and the below the table governance that
uses threats and coercion and extortion.....

If there are NOT too many laws, why do we need so many lawyers?

To cut the number of Lawyers, you first need to cut the number of laws.

--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.


author: RD Sandman

text:
JohnJohnsn <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Yep.

--
Sleep well, Tonight....

RD, The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through......why are there so many lawyers?


text:
BeamMeUpScotty <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

No, they didn't.

Congress also helped push it along and then didn't perform much oversight
on the outcomes.

Hmmmmmm, no mention of the Tri-Lateral Commission or the UN?

Actually, you just need to reduce the number of people looking for one.

--
Sleep well, Tonight....

RD, The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through......why are there so many
lawyers?


author: Mr Pounder

subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
"Peter Hucker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>> wrote:
postcodes
you

Every month I pick up that month's scheduled work.
The organisation of completing that work is my responsibility.
I also from day to day receive call outs.
I am also responsible for vehicle stock, route planning, priority work,
surveys, quotations, customer relations, installations & recently it seems
recruitment.
Receiving a telephone call from a customer after business hours is a day to
day occurrence, as is receiving faxes & emails from our office.
When the owner of the Company is on holiday or unavailable - I am the
Company.
My mobile phone has been assimilated to my weakening frame.
That Sir is why I am paid so much money.

You try to find Sunday Sight Farm, Hexham without internet or satnav
assistance.
I did!

Can you now get anywhere unaided immediately?

A map only takes a couple of minuets to look at, AutoRoute is great but not
perfect.
Come to think of AutoRoute ........... 2006?
I have always liked you Peter.

My way of course!

Mr Pounder
http://www.petersphotos.com
afterwards.


author: Peter Hucker

subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:34:19 -0000, Mr Pounder <Mr <[email]>> wrote:

 From where though?  Is each customer responsible for asking you to do a check, or does some authority tell you to check them every so often?

I am still awaiting the evidence of your pay packet.

I would eventually.  But why take eventually when you can take immediately?

Surely you cannot look at a map for 2 minutes and know in your head exactly where to go on a 3 hour journey.

I can type in an address and that's it.  I just follow the directions it speaks to me.

+/- 10 includes your +6.


subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
"Peter Hucker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>> wrote:
gives


subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:37:06 -0000, Mr Pounder <Mr <[email]>> wrote:

So it's like with the car MOTs, and you're a garage.  If a company never contacts you, what happens?   Is there a national inspection agency or something?

Then get to it.  And don't take as long as you are with the spider war.  How long can it take you to forge a pay packet?  You just need to add a couple of zeroes....

It is now, so EMBRACE IT!

Didn't notice that.

I have to check the map at every other turn.  Not possible in a city centre.

Good for you.  I need it.

Hmmm I dunno about that....


subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
"Peter Hucker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>> wrote:
years
get
more
fighting
serviced
site

Not at all; the responsibility for an MOT test is with the vehicle owner &
by no means the testing station.

If a company never contacts you, what happens?

Should the Fire Protection Company fail to gain access to a site & should
the owners of the site not respond to messages left on an answering machine
then the Fire Protection Company has made "all reasonable efforts".
Business cards are pushed through letter boxes etc.
These actions are recorded on the Engineers time sheet
The owner of the site is ultimately responsible.
I know of one night club that is now trading unlawfully, I could not make
contact.
PEL can be revoked for this negligence.

Is there a national inspection agency or something?

Not yet, not until they have a fire & the insurance companies do not pay
out.
To lack a service of maintenance certificate of portable fire extinguishers
is a breach of Insurance, Planning Permission, Building Regulations,
Employment In The Workplace Act.

HOWEVER, from 1.4.06, the local Fire Officer will be making inspections - no
more Mr Nice Guy - this will be Mr Nasty Guy holding closure orders in each
hand. He will be the national inspection agency using the RRO......google
RRO.

work,
day
How long can it take you to forge a pay packet?  You just need to add a
couple of zeroes....

I can prove it.
If I do will you shut the fuck up?

You are once again weaselling.

It was nothing short of a disgrace.

usually
the
centre.
do

I don't.
it

Come along, be a sport.

Mr Pounder
http://www.petersphotos.com


subject: Re: Father to hang for being drunk

text:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:44:32 -0000, Mr Pounder <Mr <[email]>> wrote:

But you just said "HOWEVER, should we fail to attend the final responsibility is that of the customer."

What I mean is say I had a company, but I never contacted a fire protection agency to get my premises checked.

Bloody hell more safety officers.  Can't people hurt themselves anymore?

Yes.

I'm persuading you to get into the 21st century.

You have admitted a mistake.  I shall note this down.

Fucking show off.

I don't play fair :-)


author: Michael Burns

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
Maybe Mr. Sternlight isn't as naive as his posts would seem to indicate.
Perhaps he has some ulterior motive for being the official talk.politics.
crypto government aplogist.  Perhaps he works covertly for the Feds or for
a company that would profit from Clipper.

This is just a conjecture, but seems more plausible than the naive theory.


author: David Sternlight

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <2gca92$[email]>,
Jamie Jamison <[email]> wrote:

Trust is irrelevant, though I do trust the government on many matters. It's
coincidence of interests with respect to the protection of competitive U.S.
economic information against foreign espionage that is decisive for me here
where neither you nor I know "the truth" and we're all relying on logic and
analysis, mixed with speculation.

Given the most likely places for problems in Clipper, that's why I suggest
we focus our attention on strengthening the escrow wywtem. As Mark Twain
said, "Trust everyone, and always cut the cards."

David


author: Olaf Seibert

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In <[email]> [email] (L. Detweiler) writes:
[about David Sternlight]

So, perhaps L. Detweiler and David Sternlight are different instances
of the same AI program...


author: Thomas C. Allard

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Michael Burns) writes:

Nah, if the gov't could stop Sternlight, I bet they would.  After
all, most of these threads are kept alive by his insistance on
replying to everything and NEVER letting an argument die.  Consider
the recent example where he claimed that there IS "evidence"
that private cryptography will never be outlawed.  His
"evidence" was that the gov't said so!

My view is that he's an AI program gone mad.  Possibly in training
the program they showed it the '50s propaganda mentioned earlier
and didn't try and qualify any of the info it was given.

And I have evidence: I said so!

rgds-- TA  ([email])

The opinions expressed in this article are that of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System and do not represent
the views of the poster.  Oh wait, I got that backwards!

pgp key available on servers...
...see alt.security.pgp if you don't know what that means.


author: Paul Ferguson

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
Michael Burns ([email]) wrote:

: Maybe Mr. Sternlight isn't as naive as his posts would seem to indicate.
: Perhaps he has some ulterior motive for being the official talk.politics.
: crypto government aplogist.  Perhaps he works covertly for the Feds or for
: a company that would profit from Clipper.

: This is just a conjecture, but seems more plausible than the naive theory.

It would be advisable for all who are exclusively following this thread
on talk.politics.crypto to venture over to comp.org.eff.talk to get the
full scope (much, much more robust discussion).

Cheers.


subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <[email]>,
Michael Burns <[email]> wrote:

Please take this to alt.conspiracy.

Thanks;
David


author: Steve Brinich

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
If somebody came to the game with a deck of cards he'd printed himself
and which none of the other players were allowed to inspect, Twain would
probably have thrown the guy out on his ear.  That's what should be done
with Clipper.

Steve Brinich               | If the government wants us to respect the law, |
<[email]>  |         it should set a better example.        |


author: Robert Krawitz

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (David Sternlight) writes:

   Given the most likely places for problems in Clipper, that's why I suggest
   we focus our attention on strengthening the escrow wywtem. As Mark Twain
   said, "Trust everyone, and always cut the cards."

In bridge, kibitzers are not allowed to point out a revoke.  I don't
want the government to require me to permit kibitzers to watch me in
case I revoke and then call the director on me.


subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <[email]>,
Thomas C. Allard <[email]> wrote:

Reminds me of Kissinger's farewell address at the State Department.

"I have been called 'indispensable'. I have been called 'magnificent'. I
have been called 'a miracle worker'. I know this is so because I never
forget anything I say."

David


author: David Mitchell

subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
In article <2gca92$[email]> Jamie Jamison,
[email] writes:

I doubt that any of you will remember this, but a few months ago someone
on one of these groups wondered about the gov'ts penchant for choosing
the names of types of ships as codenames.  Clipper ship, for example.
Apperantly skipjack is also a type of boat.  I don't know how capstone
fits in to this, but I can make some guesses about Sternlight.

-David Mitchell


subject: Re: Who is David Sternlight?

text:
Oops, sorry about the formating of my last post.  Even though I did not
include anything Jamie Jamison said, I managed to stick an attribution in
there anyway.  Sorry about any confusion.

In article <2gg7vt$[email]> David Mitchell,
[email] writes:


author: DoD

subject:
Re: McFee, why should the whole world remember the 'holocaust' (that
	does not include the tens of millions who died in WWII that were not Jewish)
	when the same people who suffered this... later do this...:
	http://aliyaallzionists.files.wordpress.com/2008/0

text:
On Jun 23, 3:30 pm, "Chris C. Larson" <[email]>
wrote:

Same thing as when these people pretend that if Arabs could have the
upperhand, they would be lovey dovey with Israel. These bigots that
come to these forums are about as dishonest as can be. If I didn't
like Jews.. I would admit it.....  I would be more like Tommy than a
coward like Al.


author: B. H. Cramer

subject: Re: McFee, why should the whole world remember the 'holocaust' (that does not include the tens of millions who died in WWII that were not Jewish) when the same people who suffered this... later do this...: http://aliyaallzionists.files.wordpress.com/2008/0

text:
"DoD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jun 23, 3:30 pm, "Chris C. Larson" <[email]>
wrote:

They were cool with the yids before the European zionazis started turning up
in large numbers, you traitorous little prick.


author: Gary Renzetti

subject:
Re: McFee, why should the whole world remember the 'holocaust' (that
   does not include the tens of millions who died in WWII that were not Jewish)
   when the same people who suffered this... later do this...:  http://aliyaallzionists.files.wordpress.com/2008/0

text:
DoD wrote:

Doodoo you are more like Sowsan Cohen, but not as smart.


author: R. Thomas Haden

subject: Re: End of Dworking

text:
Canada.

Canada has legislated some of Dworkin's silly laws.
I can't remember, but I think it has to do with sexually oriented
material and how it is harmful toward society, etc.
I believe the Canadians shut down a couple of lesbian book-stores
because of her works. CHUCKLE

Rev. Mrzlak Nyzamot!


author: PNEWS

subject: Re: End of Dworking

text:
R. Thomas Haden ([email]) wrote:

: Canada.

: Canada has legislated some of Dworkin's silly laws.
: I can't remember, but I think it has to do with sexually oriented
: material and how it is harmful toward society, etc.
: I believe the Canadians shut down a couple of lesbian book-stores
: because of her works. CHUCKLE

: Rev. Mrzlak Nyzamot!
: --

I don't suppose you have taken the time to read any of her books?
Or are you one of those who favors perpetuating
cultural sadism?

"There is something every woman wears around her neck on a thin
chain of fear---an amulet of madness. For each of us, there
exists somewhere a moment of insult so intense that she will
reach up and rip the amulet off, even if the chain tears at the
flesh of her neck."
    [Robin Morgan, "Goodbye to All That," GOING TOO FAR]


author: Dan Zabetakis

subject: Re: End of Dworking

text:
In article <[email]>, PNEWS <[email]> wrote:

   Are you one of those people who for some reason can't see that giving
extrodinary censorship powers to a government controlled by a dominant
class could not possibly increase the liberty of the subjugated class?
Dworkinnon is willing to sacrifice anything, even women, on the alter
of anti-pornography.
  Any yet outside of Ed Meese and other conservative ideologues, they
haven't gotten much support. Doesn't that bug you?

DanZ


author: Sans Gene

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
Dan Clore <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

snip. snip.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecr
o

     I think anarchism is not about the question of having or
not having a government.  Rather, it is concerned with the
individual having the "freedom" to make decisions and having the
capability of implementing those decisions.

     Anything that deprives the individual this "freedom" to
decide, and hinders the capability of the individual to
implement decisions, is not anarchistic.

     The question here is this:  does capitalism hampers or does
it facilitates anarchism?

      Sans Gene

     Pay no mind to the handle.  It's mostly wistful thinking.
I'm actually very shy and timid in person.

PS

     Sorry for "from" headers of my first postings.  I messed up
the configuration settings of News.Individual.Net.  For those who
did not notice, they are the postings with subjects of "Writer
Needs Anarchist Book Publishers," and "Anarcho-Capitalism,
Oxymoron?"


author: anonymonypeia

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
Sans Gene wrote:

I think anarchism is about the question of having or not having
government.  Individuals can't make and implement decisions if a
government is doing that for us.  The answer is, capitalism hampers
anarchism.


author: Alex Russell

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[snip - Dan Clore]

If you plan on having a coherent conversation it is best to NOT redefine the
meaning of words to suit your own political beliefs. If I was think of
discussing religion with Catholics I would NOT start off by saying "I think
Jesus was just a carpenter", or "I think heaven is where bad people go". We
wouldn't be speaking the same language.

Anarchy has a well defined meaning. It means no government, where government
means an organization with a monopoly on using force to enforce its
decisions over a defined geographical area. Anarchy says nothing about the
economic system you would use.

Many people confuse economic systems with political systems as many common
types of government tend to strongly support a particular form of economics.
In an ideal anarchy, multiple co-existing economies would operate free from
government interference. There are those who argue that economic system X
needs government interference to exist (where X ranges from captitalism to
socialism), but this is a secondary issue  compared to actually reaching
anarchy.


author: michael price

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in message news:<9qhcc.1212$bh.940@lakeread02>...

  Agreed.  Indeed it's hard to see how people could come to any
other conclusion.

  I'm sorry but that's a massive non sequitur.  Capitalism is
not the government making or implementing decisions.  The
capacity to privately own and operate the means of production
and to buy and sell labour is a neccesary result of anarchism.
The only people who can prevent you doing these things are
governments.  Therefore the absence of government neccesarily
leads to the capacity to do them, i.e. capitalism.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in message
news:9qhcc.1212$bh.940@lakeread02...
the
does
thinking.
up
who
"Writer
a
hampers

Please read the post with the subject "Anarcho-Capitalism,
Oxymoron?"

Sans Gene

Pay no mind to the handle.  It's mostly wistful thinking.  I'm
actually very shy and timid in person.


author: strabo

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On 5 Apr 2004 17:25:16 -0700, [email] (michael price)
wrote:

All of these terms, "anarchism, "capitalism", "labor", "means of
production" and even the word "government", are ill-defined and
loaded with emotion and presumptions.

For example, Capitalism, as it is today, implies a central
banking system (government sanctioned), script, loan making
bodies, compound interest, usury, and the government privileges
and duties accorded corporate charters. Often when writers simply
want to describe a private business for profit where none of the
foregoing need apply.

"Anarchism", implying the absence of a formal government,
is often assumed to mean that there is no governing structure
at all.

Unless pre-defined and used in a specific context I think
jargon is usually counterproductive to discussion.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
michael price wrote:
It doesn't matter if capitalism is not the government.  Capitalism is
few people owning everything and everybody else working.  That's not
fair.  No, property and ordering workers are the opposites of anarchism.
  We already had capitalism.  It collapsed.


author: James A. Donald

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
--
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:43:42 GMT, strabo <[email]>
wrote:

No, government intervention against capitalism implies a
central banking system.  Hong Kong, for example, does not have
a central banking system.  Though in Hong Kong, certain banks
have government created privileges, the privileges are
considerably less than is usual.

Compound interest does not require government, only private
contract.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     fKIALtowpG9jMrfjdiuguwxloRD9gj7Z3SPc6S7X
     4ouFLM0f1NNZzR4J5S9gfTmTixKG7I946VKaEkGQm


author: gavnook

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in
news:kDqcc.3868$bh.2619@lakeread02:

No it's not.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in message news:<kDqcc.3868$bh.2619@lakeread02>...

  Then stop pretending to be an anarchist.  If it doesn't matter
if capitalism is government or not you are obviously apathetic
about whether there is government or not.

  No it is the private consensual trade and private ownership of
capital and land.  This may lead o "a few people owning everything"
(although that isn't as clear as most people pretend) but it is
not the thing itself.

  Nor is life, that doesn't mean you should stop it.

  You haven't shown this and by saying that it doesn't matter if
capitalism is the government you admit you don't care if it's true
or not.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
The USA had capitalism before the depression.  Capitalism collapsed.
The government saved the economy.  Now, we have a Keynesian economy,
which is basically state-assisted capitalism.  Don't tell me the
definition of capitalism.  I'm quite aware.  Even if we could go to
capitalism, hierarchies would develop, and we'd be in another mess.


author: Ed Faith

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia wrote:

I suppose if you keep making that assertion then people will eventually
believe it, never mind what economists really have to say about the
Great Depression.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:18:24 -0400, anonymonypeia
<[email]> wrote:

No. Government created the problem by establishing corporations,
a central bank and a debt money system. These factors allowed for
and encouraged irresponsible and stupid speculation.

Without these inflation/deflation is insignificant and the
economy would be self-adjusting.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
--
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:18:24 -0400, anonymonypeia

The great depression was caused by the government, in
substantial part caused by its attack on capitalism

There are several theories among economists concerning the
great depression, see
http://members.aol.com/profdavidmont/monetary.htm but they
disagree only as to which aspect of the attack wreaked the most
havok -- the federal reserve, or Smoot Hawley etc.

For a fairly pro capitalistaccount, you might see
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/ec
onomichistory/mysteries.shtml

But even the pro government accounts are progovernment along
the lines of saying "well, today the government is sufficiently
wise and good that it would not do things as foolish and
destructive as the things it did that quite inadvertently
caused the great depression.", rather than saying that the
government saved the day, or even of saying it did no harm.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     9GuojOYy3bNKA3wFDnbemd/PRgoc9BNU64+uNZ/i
     4VxtsIaDHsvO9FGOt51ZxlVcWATsuuz51Uge2eskC


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in news:6oDcc.5427$bh.1631
@lakeread02:

Nonsense, those who were in charge of the money supply caused the economy
to collapse.

Not exactly. They made it work again, but they didn't make it better.

If you say so...

-gavnook
--------------------
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
anonymonypeia <[email]> wrote in message news:<BPedc.130$0h6.98@lakeread02>...

  Occasionally, yes.  But I'm not the one who claims that it doesn't
matter if capitalism is neccesarily statist or not.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
strabo <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

  Certainly these were all factors, but no depression caused by
these factors was as deep or long as the Great Depression.  Instead
we have to look to massive direct control of the economy as the
cause, with the factors you list only enabling that to some extent.


author: jmh

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
strabo wrote:

While I agree the the global depression was largely a
consquence of government actions and policies I don't think
you blame goverment for a fractional resrerve banking
system or claim that inflations and defalations would
always be non-trivail economic events.

jmh


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:03:18 -0400, jmh <[email]> wrote:

Oh yes I do.

Fractional reserve banking was only possible with the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the creation of the
private central bank.

Before that, a bank either retained its customers's
gold and silver or it was considered suspect and avoided.

Runs on banks did happen and served as a warning to maintain
100%.

Obviously banks were not very profitable business under those
circumstances but I think they were best.

It was the desire for a monetary system for large scale
development and concentrated control that drove the changes. The
tradeoff resulted in the loss of real money, a debt system with
massive inflation and 100% dependency on political decisions.

Would we have the same level of technology and industry today
had the changes not been made? Possibly the same level or
greater but certainly different, and a much smaller, less
intrusive government.

As an advocate of an independent and stable society I choose
gold backed money with no central bank and no fractionalization.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[snip] fractional vs 100% reserve banks

Why would a pile of shiny metal make a bank more trust worthy?

I don't see money as a chit representing material things (eg a pile a of
gold). I see money as a chit representing peoples work. The value of gold is
just slightly less artificial than the value paper money.


author: David Friedman

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
In article <[email]>,
 strabo <[email]> wrote:

While the gentleman you are arguing with is wrong in most of what he is
saying, you are mistaken on this point. Take a look at _The Wealth of
Nations_, published in 1776, and you will find a description of the
system of private banks in Scotland in the 18th century. They were
fractional reserve banks, as you can easily see from Smith's discussion.

The advantage of a fractional reserve bank over a 100% reserve bank is
that it can use interest bearing assets to back part of the liabilities
represented by its currency, which means that it doesn't have to charge
people to use its money and can in some contexts, such as checking
accounts, pay interest to those who do so.

What is your objection to a private bank that issues fractional reserve
money, and makes it clear on the notes that it is doing so?


author: G*rd*n

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
"Alex Russell" <[email]>:

Hypothetically one might be able to depend on a certain
commodity to represent a certain amount of labor.  Given the
fluctuations in the price of precious metals I think this is
a superstition, but a widely and deeply held superstition is
a kind of reality.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
--
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 04:33:58 GMT, "Alex Russell"

People want gold for itself for various reasons, not just to
exchange for things, and it takes a lot of work to dig gold up.
Thus the value of gold is largely inherent, rather than
conventional.  In so far as the value is conventional, it is a
convention that arose spontaneously a long time ago, not a
creation of the state.

Thus money based on gold (or money based on aluminum futures)
requires no state to issue it, or sustain its value.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     /T9B8TJZXL9fSDWaCI8r6iH1k7htnDoWLScmsB/5
     4eZ5sF05iNn6VVI3J65fAbrGVIt+lzyGIxNx1cTED


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 04:33:58 GMT, "Alex Russell"
<[email]> wrote:

Wow!


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
David Friedman wrote:

I'm curious if that is directed at me, the person
that strabo was reposnding to with the above comment,
in which case perhaps you could suggest what I am
wrong about, or to another who's been more prolific in
participating in this thread.

jmh


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:42:04 GMT, David Friedman
<[email]> wrote:

Yes, I know.

I was referring only to the US economy and banking. Prior to
central government intervention in creating the debt money
system, the very thought of fractional banking in America would
have brought account holders and men with ropes to the banks.

I specify 'central government' because originally the states
individually were the official generators of notes and
securities. The federal government ensured weights and measures
for the states and its own treasury. After the War Amongst the
States, industrialists and venture capitalists, seeing the
monopolies they might create, "persuaded" the federal government
to ignore the Constitution and become THE bank. That began the
end of private banks in the US. Today you would be hard pressed
to find one.

Obviously any bank can keep on hand a fraction of its assets
and even advertise the fact but that was not the contract of
early American banks with it's customers.

While that is standard practice today it was not expected or
in demand at that time. Few of the services and features of
modern banks were needed then.

In earlier America the imposition of usury was considered by
many, a sin. Bank accountholders expected to pay for the account
out of pocket.

None at all. But the script instrument would state that the
bank would be liable for only a percentage of the face value.
How many people would accept that?

That's one reason why the US central government had to underwrite
the capitalist's venture.

To establish a lending institution in a free market with a
gold base, a cooperative or credit union would be the appropriate
vehicle. There, one could have an account while knowingly sharing
risks with other accountholders. Works quite well.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[email] (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<c58uov$9f8$[email]>...

  Gold takes a certain amount of labour (direct and indirect)
to dig up and purify.  That amount of labour cannot easily
be reduced, or it would have been.  That means that the price
at which new gold is supplied cannot go below that amount of
labour.  Admittedly there is still the problem of people who
own old gold deciding they don't want it anymore, but that is
less of a problem than you might think because it's the main
store of value.  So the supply curve makes gold worth at least
the value of the labour put into getting it, unless there is a
sudden drop in demand below historical levels.  If there is
production stops, so the price will go up again until it
reaches commercially viable levels.
  Now contrast this with "fiat" money.  The problem of reduced
demand for the money still exists (in fact it's worse since
each currency is a substitute for the others).  But there is
no restriction on how much money can be produced at any given
price in terms of labour.  If the government decided to print
twice as much money the cost might even go down if the produced
more notes and less coin.


author: Joshua Holmes

subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
In alt.society.anarchy James A. Donald <[email]> wrote:
:    --
: On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 04:33:58 GMT, "Alex Russell"
:> I don't see money as a chit representing material things (eg
:> a pile a of gold). I see money as a chit representing peoples
:> work. The value of gold is just slightly less artificial than
:> the value paper money.
:
: People want gold for itself for various reasons, not just to
: exchange for things, and it takes a lot of work to dig gold up.
: Thus the value of gold is largely inherent, rather than
: conventional.

	I'm not certain what you mean by this, but nothing has inherent
value, since value is a human construct.  I think it would be better to
say that people value gold for some of its inherent properties -
fungibility, incorruptibility, etc.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
In article <v4Idc.5490$192.395@lakeread06>, jmh <[email]> wrote:

The gentleman I was referring to was the one who wrote in an earlier
post:

Who I gather was not you.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
strabo wrote:

That is also a misconception. During the period of
time in which the US had no central bank and paper
currecny was merely bank notes a fractional reserve
banking system existed.

There was also a cental bank in the US before the Civil
War--shortly after the Revolutionary War--for a time.
Not exactly sure when it was dismantled....

It's not a contract with the customer today is it? If
I have a demand deposit then I can demand full payment.
If I have some other type of deposit then the withdrawal
terms might differ. It would be interesting to know what
type of deposits existed 100 or 200 years ago.

jmh


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
In article <[email]>,
 strabo <[email]> wrote:

That also is not correct. During the period of wildcat banking in the
19th century, there were lots of fractional reserve banks.

The First and Second Bank of the United States both predated the Civil
War by quite a while. During the war both governments issued paper money.

Your reason for believing that is? What do you think the contract that
the private 19th century banks had with their customers was?

So how do you think private, note issuing banks paid their bills in the
19th century? If they had held 100% reserves in gold or silver there
would have been no interest.

Evidence? The payment of interest was a normal feature of 18th century
life in Britain and its colonies.

...

That isn't what it would state. It would state that the bank was liable
for the full face value, but that its gold reserves were only a fraction
of its liabilities outstanding. That doesn't mean it can't redeem the
currency in full--just that doing so requires it to liquidate non-gold
assets. Note holders are then free to decide for themselves whether or
not they think the notes are risky.

The Scottish banks had a clause on their notes giving them the option of
delaying redemption, I think for six months, in exchange for paying
interest for the delay. That's one way of dealing with the problem of a
run on the bank.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
"Alex Russell" <[email]>:

[email] (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<c58uov$9f8$[email]>...

[email] (michael price):

Today, fiat money is no longer printed.  Since most money,
even currency, is produced by credit (as when you write a
check) money is "printed" or withdrawn by artificially lowering
or raising interest rates.  This -- the lowering part -- is
what the U.S. Federal Reserve has been doing for some time
now, so there is quite a bit of inflation in some areas, like
real estate and the stock market, where such credit can be
most readily applied.  This sort of manipulation could be used
on a gold-based currency as well, unless people were all always
going to demand payment in specie.  That would make money
transactions much more difficult and put quite a crimp in the
present industrial and commercial system's style.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On 10 Apr 2004 20:54:45 -0700, [email] (michael price)
wrote:

Yes. The metal simply changes value according to circumstances.
But because of its scarcity and other uses, in a gold based
economy, its value changes little.

The cost of paper and coin is very small. The problem with such
money is that government will print more and more relative to
collateral until that time when faith in the government wanes
and holders of notes attempt to collect on the inflated value.

The collateral for US debt money is the value of all homes
and properties in the states.

The US Congress for example as been spending more and printing
more money each year since WWII. The cumulative inflation index,
compared to the original value of gold, is about 2000%.

Inflation is the killer of economies and governments.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
In article <mMGec.852$XP2.363@lakeread06>, jmh <[email]> wrote:

The Second Bank of the United States failed in the 1830's.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
G*rd*n wrote:

That's incorrect. For the relivant money supply to change
the funds represented by the check must be used in specific
ways. For instance, I write a check to someone holding a
garage sale and that person then deposits the check into
their bacnk account.

What's happened to M0, M1, M2, M3 or L?

If the check goes from one chcking account to another
no money is "printed" or "burned".

I also think that what you're calling "fiat money"
is more accurately called expansions and contractions
of credit (within the context of a fractional reserve
finacncial system) and is certainly not something that
is all that new. In fact in the 1920s Keynes wrote a
reasonably nice (though there are better) analysis of
such a system and the problems that can exist within
it. You will also find some banking and finance bits
on this, and lots of editorial pieces in the NY and
New England papers written in the 19th Century on
the Wild Cat banks in the west. Apparently the
eastern banks hated the fact that the western
banks could hold lower reserves since their notes
circulating the the eastern cities just kept circulating
as cash whil the eatern banks' notes kept getting
redeamed. This is hardly something that is new and
just part of today's world--though perhaps you
were thinking of "today" in a larger perspective;-)

jmh


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[email] (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<c5biv6$alj$[email]>...

  Gordon it's the only type of money that's printed.  Find one
piece of currency that's actually backed by something.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
On 11 Apr 2004 09:59:02 -0400, [email] (G*rd*n) wrote:

This is true. But a return to gold based currency would also do
something else. It would prevent Congress, the major generator of
inflation, from 1) giving money to states for social engineering
programs and 2) supporting the military industrial complex, two
very destructive forces.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
strabo <[email]>:

Take a look at the gold chart for the period 1968-2004 at
Kitco (www.kitco.com) and then say that.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
jmh <[email]>:

I don't know.  It seems that no one cares about them any
more.

Latency is not zero.  At one bank I worked out, I was
told that the float was nine billion dollars.  However,
what I was getting at is that people do not deal in
either metallic money or paper directly representing
it any more.  Writing a check, one creates currency.

I was think of the last century or so.  I'm getting
older....


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[email] (G*rd*n):

[email] (michael price):

What I meant was that it's not the printing which is the
critical procedure in manipulating the money supply.  The
amount of money which is brought to markets, some more than
others, is now governed by the credit supply.  That's what is
driving up real estate and stock prices.  There's very little
underlying those bubbles, and yet they continue to expand,
and I guess will continue to expand as long as Mr. Greenspan
can get the Japanese and Chinese to buy his paper.  What
_they're_ up to, I can't imagine.  Inscrutable, you know.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
strabo <[email]>:

I don't see why a gold-based currency would prevent Congress
from doing anything except, of course, printing money or the
equivalent.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
G*rd*n wrote:
. . .

I agree that many, many transactions these days do
not require either coin, currecny or commodity.
Writing a check, however, still does not create
currency. Writing a check creates a promisory
note: an obligation to pay someone a certain
amount of currency or coin.

. . .

Aren't we all.

jmh


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[email] (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<c5d61e$9mf$[email]>...

  Well it's quite simple, both the US and the Asian governments fear
an economic readjustment.  Or to be more precise fear they will
be blamed for it and it's depth and length.  They are quite right
to be.  More the current problem is the USAs more being able to
pay for what it consumes without lending money and asia not being
able to sell profitably to the USA unless they give it unsustainable
credit.  The way to stave off the day when the yanks have to pay
and the asians have to take a haircut on their loans is for governments
to keep lending the money.  Needless to say the longer this goes on
the harder the adjustment will be.  It will all end in tears and
lawyers.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
--
On 12 Apr 2004 21:49:50 -0400, [email] (G*rd*n) wrote:

That is one mighty big thing it would prevent congress from doing.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     mFqcuc8Mjs3mWt8LOJP4N4PikE5cmsm6I3GcWuqV
     4UTXMBXp8g3XwvdDz0sUA1JklMe8l7I5UEuAUeqhT


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
G*rd*n wrote:

jmh <[email]>:

Well, money then.  I'm thinking of people coming into a market
and paying with something.  At one time it was (usually) pieces
of metal, which did have something to do with labor; then,
pieces of paper which supposedly represented the metal, but
not quite; then pieces of paper sort of representing other
things; then numbers written on paper or transmitted along
wires which sort of represent the pieces of paper.  At each
stage of representation, however, a degree of fictionalization
takes place.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
[email] (G*rd*n) wrote:

James A. Donald <[email]>:

It wouldn't stop them from engaging in social engineering or
imperialism.  They could still draft, tax and borrow.  And
forbid various things.


subject: Re: New Definition of "Anarchy"!

text:
G*rd*n wrote:

Gordon, if all you are talking about is credit or
promisory notes, guess what? They've been around a
very long time.

Your intial post appeared to be confusing a transfer
of a claim to existing money with the process of
money creation within our current system. I was just
clearing up that confusion.

jmh
jmh


author: when does a Chinese deny a Chinese is a Chinese , ? when a Chinese claims to be a Malaysian

subject:
Russia has been unable to deliver it. It was supposed to have come
 two years ago. Then a fresh date towards the end of 2012 was set up. It too
 passed by.

text:
why  can ' t  Indians  build   their own  Indian Air-craft  Carrier
 like
the  Chinese  people   are  building  NOW   their own Chinese
aircraft  carrier
in  Chinese  ship  yards   ?

Chinese are   now    building  their  own  2   NEW   Chinese  air-
craft  carriers
in  Chinese  ship  Yards   .

 Oct 13, 2:00 am, [email] and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai
Maharaj) wrote:


author: Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutros ( Botros ) , the instigator for the film Innocences of the Muslims

subject:
Re: Russia has been unable to deliver it. It was supposed to have
 come two years ago. Then a fresh date towards the end of 2012 was set up. It
 too passed by.

text:
Indians   from  Sub- Continent  are    dis -  united  , selfish
people  ,
only  looking  after  their  own  cocks    and  cunts .

Indians   are  not  a  united  people

Oct 19, 2:45 am, rst0 <[email]> wrote:


text:
On Oct 18, 9:49 am, "when  does  a  Chinese  deny  a  Chinese  is  a
Chinese  ,  ?  when a  Chinese  claims  to be  a  Malaysian"
<[email]> wrote:

The Indian engineers are too busy looking for ways to get
out of India like the Chinese used to do.  They are talking
to Microsoft trying to get on the waiting list on Microsoft's
request for 6,000 additional H1-B engineers to come into the U.S.


author: Dr. Jai Maharaj

subject: Re: Waiting for Gorshkov - Russia must hasten delivery of the aircraft carrier - Why is Admiral Gorshkov so reluctant to arrive in Bharat? Well, you can hardly blame the aircraft carrier for the situation. For one reason or the other, Russia has been unable to deliver it. It was supposed to have come two years ago. Then a fresh date towards the end of 2012 was set up. It too passed by.

text:
Waiting for Gorshkov

Editorial
The Pioneer
Friday, October 12, 2012

Russia must hasten delivery of the aircraft carrier

Why is Admiral Gorshkov so reluctant to arrive in India?
Well, you can hardly blame the aircraft carrier for the
situation. For one reason or the other, Russia has been
unable to deliver it. It was supposed to have come two
years ago. Then a fresh date towards the end of 2012 was
set up. It too passed by. The latest promise is that the
ship shall be handed over to India by the end of 2013.
The deal with New Delhi for the battleship was done eight
years ago; itï¿½s been a long wait, therefore. But what
have arrived with unfailing regularity are glitches in
the form of some confusion regarding payments and then
technical faults that have cropped up in the engine of
the aircraft carrier. The delays have also added to the
cost of the acquisition. None of these is good news for
the Indian Navy, which is banking heavily on the addition
of this vessel to boost its marine power at a time when
China is busy expanding its influence in the neighbouring
waters. Since the delay in the delivery of the ship is
also happening at a time when Russia is warming up to
Pakistan ï¿½ the latter's Army Chief was recently given
virtually a standing ovation during his visit to Moscow ï¿½
the development has left a sour taste.

Continues here:

http://dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52627-waiting-for-gorshkov.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti


author: Alexander Mulligan

subject: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Where did the Scientific Method come from?

Did God carve it on a stone and deliver it to the First Scientist?

Was it inspiration? What's inspiration?

Was it reasoning? Based on what premises? Where did those premises
come from?

------------------

We don't need any personalities here.

We know that someone(s) thought it up.

Don't waste our time, Rick, by cutting and pasting 100's of lines
of biographical information about your religious heroes.

For once, try to focus on the issues rather than how much you
hate people who questions your (imagined) authority.

<+>


author: Do Ya, Moron?

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] says...

You don't really wanna know, do ya moron?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In his enunciation of a 'method' in the 13th century, Roger Bacon was inspired
by the writings of Arab alchemists, who had preserved and built upon
Aristotle's portrait of induction. Bacon described a repeating cycle of
observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent
verification. In the 17th century Francis Bacon attempted to describe a
rational procedure for establishing causation between phenomena.

Galileo Galilei introduced quantitative experimentation and mathematical
analysis, which permitted the enunciation of general physical laws. Isaac
Newton systematised these laws, becoming a model which other sciences sought to
emulate.

Attempts to systematise the scientific method were faced with the Problem of
induction, which points out that inductive reasoning is not logically valid.
David Hume set the difficulty out in detail. Karl Popper, following others,
argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable; that is, it must be capable of
disproof. Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea
that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the
sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science.

The question of how science operates has importance well beyond scientific
circles or the academic community. In the judicial system and in public policy
controversies, for example, a study's deviation from accepted scientific
practice is grounds for rejecting it as "junk science" or pseudoscience.


author: Rick

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan wrote:

People.

 From a particular perspective of what God is (inspiration seems as good
a concept as any) and what the First Scientists is (the inspired one),
sure, why not?

As near as I can tell, inspiration is something that humans sometimes
experience, if they're lucky. My best guess is that inspiration most
often occurs for the average Joe when there's some sort of challenge,
obstacles to goals, etc. There appears to be emotional and cognitive
elements involved in the experience. So an inspiration is often
experienced as an idea, thought, or a conceptualization of some sort
that represents a solution to the challenge at hand, a way of dealing
with the obstacles, etc. This cognitive experience may be simple or
complex, depending on the particulars of the issue to which it relates.
Further, the cognitive event is generally accompanied by a relatively
high level of emotion, which may affect things like the strength of
confidence in the idea and who knows what else.

Inspiration is also associated with creative processes of all sorts. The
above can be considered in terms of creative problem solving, where the
"inspiration" can be cited as a moment of clarity wherein the inspired
sees the issues in a way they hadn't seen them before, often following
some period of introspection, which in turn provides some new basis for
formulating new solutions to the problem.

But we're probably most familiar with the idea of inspiration in
relation to artistic expression. Here we have the same basic process, an
idea or conception, fueled in some way by a relatively high degree of
emotion.

Inspiration could be said to be one form of experience stemming from the
larger set of intuitive faculties inherent in humans.

I'm glad you asked. Reasoning was almost certainly involved. But
reasoning alone couldn't have been enough. I'll return to that in a moment.

***Digression***

I would say that intuitive and rational processes, both being among the
natural human endowment, are complimentary faculties, so they work
together toward whatever end the individual seeks. I don't think either
one works in isolation from the other. Considering them as independent
functional units (for convenience of discussion), we can envision the
ways in which they work together.

Stated in simplified terms:

1. Available information is almost always incomplete and rational
processes can only operate on available information. Intuitive processes
fill in the gaps, and between the two processes a (hopefully) best
possible outcome course of action is determined.

2. Intuitive processes generate experiences like inspiration, that give
rise to previously unexpected, or never before considered action.
Rational processes use available information to assess the practical
implications of acting on the inspired conception, revising if
appropriate, and then again, a best outcome course can be chosen.

The interactions between intuitive and rational processes are almost
certain to be considerably more intricate and complex than the above,
but I think those descriptions serve well enough to illustrate the point
I intend to make.

Now, to be more specific, I'll draw a distinction between knowledge
available to conscious awareness and knowledge that is not generally
available to conscious awareness. The former is generally termed
"declarative knowledge," and includes anything we can describe or answer
direct questions about (facts, descriptions of objects we've seen,
people we know, dreams we recall, etc.), anything we can declare.

Non declarative knowledge isn't part of conscious awareness (in a
declarative way), but has measurable behavioral effects. A simple
example of non declarative knowledge is knowing how to sing on key and
with a rich tone. Exactly how one does it isn't available to conscious
awareness in a way that can be declared. As is typical of non
declarative knowledge, an experiential process is required to acquire
that good singing technique. It's not that we aren't consciously aware
of the fact that we can know how to sing well (if indeed we can), it's
that the process of singing well isn't something we can declare. We know
we can do it, but can't say how we do it.

Non declarative knowledge takes on many forms, and should be of keen
interest to the magician (in my opinion), because magical knowledge is
by nature a non declarative type of knowledge, acquired only through
experience. We can all talk about it all day long, but the words we
choose are no more effective at teaching magick to others than is
telling someone how to sing. Without the experiential process, the
knowledge cannot be acquired.

Okay then, rational processes work exclusively on declarative knowledge,
and have no access to any of the non declarative types knowledge we may
possess. Intuitive processes, however and in part, form something of
bridge between declarative and non declarative knowledge. An inspiration
is often experienced as a breakthrough, which could be a good
description of the actual process, whereby non declarative knowledge
briefly breaks through the barrier to conscious awareness in some form.
But the nature of non declarative knowledge prevents it from actually
becoming declarative, so it remains an indescribable experience, yet can
have a profound impact on conscious awareness.

***end digression***

I'd say that the scientific method is the product of both reasoning and
intuitive faculties, both driven by the desire to be gain accurate and
useful information.

Certainly. I'll bet a lot of people thought it up, independently.

I have no religious heroes to name. Science isn't a religion for me.
It's something I do and enjoy, but that's about it. You know this by
now, but for some reason are persevering on the notion.

I am a religious guy though. I could be described generally as a
neo-Pagan, and specifically as a devotee of Pan. You can make fun of me
for that if you like. At least then you'll be more accurate.

Historically, it appears that the basic scientific approach to questions
considered to be of universal import (to the people at the time)
originated in Arabic culture, along with astronomy, algebra, and a
number of things. But even before then, as far back as it goes, I
suspect that people were applying similar, precursory methods to
accomplish their goals.

I don't claim any authority (accept that I authored this article of
course). I'm just a guy with an opinion. You know this too, but again
are persevering in the false characterization you've created.

Work on truth, Bruce.
Strive for accuracy.
Develop self-control.

Real magick will be squarely out of your reach until you get a handle on
these things.

Rick


author: Tom

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Do Ya, Moron?" <[email]> wrote in message
news:wk%hd.56968$df2.14478@edtnps89...
says...

Aw, what the hell.  Why not tell him the truth?  It's no big secret, after
all.

Here it is, Bruce.  The origin of the Scientific Method, finally revealed:
The Scientific Method sprang fully armed from the brow of Zeus.

There.  Now run along and play.  There's a good boy.


author: Dungeons & Dragons Geek

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] says...

If that's all the validation you need to feel safe in your fantasy world, your
fantasy world must be pretty boring, as far as fantasy worlds go!

Use your imagination, and get a 20-sided die for those times when the plutonia
dilemma arises.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Alexander Mulligan wrote:

"Dungeons and Dr..."

Troll. Posts ignored and any responses to them.

Listen, fool: You can't make me read your posts.

Not if your life depended on it.

Speaking of life, why don't you consider getting one?

<+>


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Alexander Mulligan wrote:

Let's imagine this hypothetical First Scientist, sitting
in his study and lost in thought, when he receives the initial
inspiration that led to the Scientific Method:

To learn about how reality works, study reality. Observe the
universe.

The first step in the Scientific Method:

  * 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION0212100000000

Sounds so very reasonable, and indeed it is.

In fact, it sounds an awful lot like common sense.

So what was new here? Where's the revelation?

For the first time, human beings began to entertain the idea
that only information obtained through the physical senses
was valid.

That only the physical universe was real.

That the physical universe causes itself.

That it was a mindless machine.

This was a *shocking* notion (the first Scientists were
persecuted quite seriously) and has obviously never been
fully accepted by the vast majority of human beings.
(witness the number of alternative cosmologies, including
religions with hundreds of millions of members).

This inspiration was not a revelation, it was just a concept,
like any other.

The First Scientist thought that he was receiving The Truth,
and because he believed that, he dismissed all other perceptions
as illusions. They had to be, because the physical universe was
the only reality.

It was the *belief* that was responsible for the perceptions,
not the other way around.

The idea came first, and the experience followed.

This is the same pattern followed by every religious movement in
history, and the dominant religion of any culture has always
referred to itself as "The Truth", which is exactly what people
mean when they say "Science".

Those that believe in Science, that is.

It is so easy to get lost in ideas. The people who lived in Europe
when the great universities like Oxford were seminaries that trained
Christian priests, didn't think that God and Jesus and Mary were
nice ideas that might actually exist, these beings were as real
to them as their families and friends.

They didn't exist (for the most part) on the Earth, but the
Earth wasn't the only reality.

I hate to say it, having struggled against the negative aspects of
Christianity for much of my life, but it is actually closer to the
Truth, by far, than Science is.

This is not the age of enlightenment. This is humanity's darkest age.

We took a wrong turning and this is obvious as hell: If you are in
danger of destroying your planet, you are on the wrong track.

While people starve by the millions, Science sends little robots out
into space to measure radiation, using enough money to feed these
people well for a decade.

This is simply SICK.

I judge the value of all trees by their fruits.

Science is obviously a failed hypothesis.

<+>


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan wrote:

Just for the sake of discussion, why do you think anyone would think that?

Why would anyone think that?

Why would anyone think that?

Why would anyone think that?

Why do you think there is disagreement among humans on this issue?

Rick


author: agray

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan wrote:

Not exactly, and it's from here that your problem originates.

Science does not deny other types of knowledge.  It is completely agnostic
toward them.  (Individual scientists may hold opinions about the validity
of non-scientific knowledge, but that's irrelevant.)

What a scientist is interested in is information and knowledge which can be
shared/distributed in a meaningful way.  Firsthand experience is what leads
to knowledge.  That experience may be based on perception, sense data and
logical deduction therefrom.  It may also be based on revelation, insight,
epiphany, etc.

"Science" is concerned with the first type only -- firsthand experience of
perception, sense data, and logical deduction therefrom.  The "Scientific
Method" is the process of structuring the approach to knowledge so that
others can repeat the process for themselves, and gain firsthand experience
of the knowledge.

A statement like that only makes sense to somoene who equates science with
religion.  "Science" is not a "hypothesis", it's a process.  The process
can be applied to any academic pursuit.  "Science" does exactly what it
claims to do, which is to aid a seeker of knowledge in their quest.
"Science" does not guarantee results, nor does "Science" claim to feed the
hungry or cure disease.  "Science" does not derive its value from its
ability or inability to do these things, because "Science" does not have
"abilities".  It's just a process.

Individuals, in all their glorious individualism, are the ones who attempt
to cure disease, feed the hungry, develop industries that pollute, develop
horrific weapons, etc.  Each individual is responsible for the good or evil
that they do, regardless of the method by which they do it.  Condemning all
archaeologists, historians, particle physicists, biologists, medical
researchers, statisticians, mathematicians, wave theorists, fluid
dynamicists for the evils brought on by a few of them is like condemning
all spatulas because some chefs cook with spoiled food.

And ultimately, "science" is not incompatible with religion.  It may lead
researchers and theorists to derive theories that contradict someone's
beliefs, but that's, pardon the expression, "tough shit".  If the data is
good, the observations are good, the method is repeatable, then I'll bet on
science to reveal the truth over any other method.  The truth might be
harmful or evil or unpleasant, but that's not science's fault.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Rick wrote:

That is an entirely different discussion, and we can talk
about it on another thread if you wish.

The important fact here is that they did, and because others
were persuaded to believe that they had found The Truth, it
changed the face of history.

And now we are facing the imminent possible destruction of
our planet via several related agencies that would never
have come to exist if people had not accepted this new
cosmology as fact.

There is more starvation, abject poverty, and violence and
de facto slavery, proportionally, than there ever was before
Science came on the scene.

People are less healthy and fit than they were before Science
came on the scene.

And they are certainly a lot less happy. Happy people don't
commit wholesale acts of mass and domestic violence or take
mind-altering drugs, legal, illegal, over-the-counter and
prescription, at the rate that people in the West do.
They don't finance and build weapons that could destroy their
planet.

Nor do they spend their lives watching movies and TV and
sitting in restaurants stuffing their faces and driving
around in horseless carriages and blasting their brains out
with music.

Science, which fuels one hell of a lot of
business/labor/trade/manufacturing, and is in turn financed
by same, has a truly wonderful PR Department.

They actually have most people believing that the world is
better than it ever was, but this is just nonsense.

No Rick, I am not going to waste the next 10 years playing
"cut and paste from a website that offers information that
supports my/your opinion" with you. That's a fool's game
that for some reason you are addicted to.

Only common sense is necessary here, and a minimal
geo-political awareness. All they really have to do is open
their eyes and look around.

Anyone can go to the U.N. websites and check out the stats.
They are appalling.

Science makes many claims about its achievements, and 90%
of them are illusions. For example, they claim that we live
longer than we did before.

Sure. *Some* people are living longer. Those very few that
can afford the serious ministrations of high technology.
As de facto vegetables. The rest of the apparent increase
in life-span is a statistical illusion that results from
decreased infant mortality rates.

Which gives us a criminally and suicidally over-populated
planet.

Brilliant.

Science tells us that it isn't the quality-of-life that
matters, only the length.

Another insanity.

<+>


author: MDHJWH

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
agray <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...
snip<

It is entirely possible that science will eventually discover the
creator/almighty/god/(insert appropriate expression to satisfy your
belief 'system'). It is also possible science will find it/he/she
/them to be  of a sadistic mind-set capable of astonishing cruelty.
Should we go on searching or simply tranquilize ourselves into
believing in a benign, all loving creator/almighty/god/(insert
appropriate expression to satisfy etc') ???

A M


author: Parse Tree

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan wrote:

I doubt the truth of that statement. It also in no way shows that
science is the cause of those things.

See above.

I really don't believe the truth of that statement.

You have happiness polls from before the development of the scientific
method? And you think that these polls are reliable? And you think that
the statistics they didn't have back then was useful?

Why not? What is intrinsic about happy people that would prevent them
from doing that?

I'm not aware of any current weapons that can actually destroy the
planet earth.

So now not only is science bad, but so is music, television and movies?

If you would like to live in this 'utopia' you're describing, you're
perfectly free to do so.

Before you go, could you explain why it is that people who are
anti-technology often whine about it while still utilizing it. If the
internet really does make you unhappy, then maybe you should stop using
it. I know that I enjoy it. And that I am quite happy, and happy that I
am living now, and not in some past age without television and movies,
and music, and so on.

It doesn't need a PR department. It has the best customer service around.

While religions have a lot of talk, scientists frequently improve the
quality of people's lives.

As an aside, why is it that you think people are unhappy with science
and simultaneously happy with science? Do you not notice the
contradiction? Or do you think people are somehow unaware that they're
'unhappy'?

In what way is it worse?

It's not something I care for, either. Appealing to authority is
tedious. If I wanted to read those people's opinions, I wouldn't be
posting to usenet, I'd be reading their articles and such.

What's appalling? Do you realize that the standard of living for poor
people has gradually increased throughout history?

The awareness of germs has increased the average human's lifespan.

The general life span has increased as well.

A longer life gives more opportunity for quality.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Ever was? Where do you get the stats for pre-history? Paelentology
provides us with evidence of arthritus for instance in ancient
'civililizations'. Remember the black plague?

Wrong and overly simplistic assertion

There's no science in the 'East" ? People have been taking mind
altering drugs since as long as we have records, MORE potent and more
frequently in many ancient societies.

Many societies that DON"T subscribe to the scientific paradigm,
fundamentalist Islam for example, are struggling to get their hands on
weapons of mass destruction.

I have few arruments with scientific methodology as a way of
discovering the working of the universe and all contained within it
yet I do not spend my live watchingTV, I do not sit in resturants
stuffing my face, drive around needlessly in a horseless carriage and
unless classical music listened to at reasonable volume is responsible
for 'brain blasting' I'm not subject to that either.

Here is the fundamental source of your confusion. Your are refering to
central features of international capitalism (both state & corporate)
that indulge in mass PR (propaganda?). There is nothing in scientific
methodology that dictates such an approach.

Apart from the fact that most people have little if any awarness of
history such beliefs are not universally held, even in the
propagandised west. Ask a Christian fundamentalist for his/her take on
the state of the world.

Indeed but the cure for those appalling stats IS science or is your
view so extream you would deny those millions dying from AIDS in
Africa modern medical treatments? Witchdoctoring them hasn't worked.

Science makes no such simplistic claim. Scientific anthropology tells
us that SOME ancient societies
lives far longer than SOME of societies today. It also tells us that
SOME ancient societies, and many pre-enlightenment ones, live shorter
and nastier lives than SOME do today. You are addicted to making vast
and crude generalizations to justify your hatred of scientific method.
Did you have great difficulty with maths as a child,and like me
develop a hatred for anything associated with it, such as science?

Decreased infant mortality rates aren't the result of science?
What then are they the result of? Don't tell me it's the sewage
technology. That's the result of science.
What's a 'de-facto vegitable'?

No, irrational attitudes to birth control and time give us that.

HUH? I presume you are herby asserting the psychology isn't a science?

Science isn't concerned with what matters, its concern is with what
IS.
It is the job of philosophy to tell us what matters.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Alexander Mulligan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

that?

I asked the questions. It's your choice to answer them, here or anywhere
else.

You made a point earlier about the scientific method that bears further
comment.

You pointed out that observation, the first step of the method, is just
common sense, and of course you're right.

The scientific method has indeed grown completely out of natural human
tendencies. The only departures in the scientific method from what people
naturally do to understand their world have grown from the desire to be more
accurate (which is itself a natural human thing).

The idea that people needed some *extra* effort to be accurate probably
comes from the relatively common event of having an intuitive understanding
of something that turns out to be inaccurate later on. The flat world
hypothesis is a decent example.

Rick


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"MDHJWH" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...
science's fault.

It may, at that.  However, it is likely that whatever it is, it will not be
labelled "god".  Just as when some principle preached in magical lore is
verified, it is not called "magic".


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Parse Tree" <[email]> wrote in message
news:mtDid.4496464$[email]...

Nah.. He just makes this shit up.

I'm a happy guy.  When I have a minor ache or pain, sometimes I happily take
an aspirin.  Afterwards, I'm just as happy as ever.

What's a wholesale act of domestic violence, BTW?  Beating several
households at the same time?

Emperor Ming's Plutonic Death Ray.

Bruce is crypto-Amish.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Parse Tree wrote:

Do your homework before you come to a conclusion.

Why are so many scientists so ready to abandon any sort
of reason when their precious religion is questioned?

I am sick of arguing with scientists.

You are as infuriatingly bigoted as the worst Christian
fundamentalists.

Shove your religion. I have been hearing about it all my life
and it is GARBAGE.

Hopefully others will benefit from your defensive ramblings.

Are you Rick?

[....]

We'll talk about your silly religion when we are dead.

Then what good will your parroting of college texts do you?

Oops. I forgot. Gullibility _is_ something you can take with you.

<+>


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"MDHJWH" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...

Somebody channelled Seth for him.  Or maybe it was that Ramtha dude.  They
all seem to spout out of one or another of those rather similar-looking lady
mediums, so it's hard to tell which spook is which.   Ramtha was the one who
was supposed to have been a ten-thousand year old warrior, according to that
lady on the horse ranch in western Washington, so I guess that would make
him an expert on life in prehistory.

I do.  I've been reading the Akashic Records.  You should see Bruce's
childhood!  No wonder he's the way he is.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Rick wrote:

You were, and are, attempting to lead the discussion away from concepts
that frighten you.

No. That's a malicious distortion of what I said. I qualified the
statement profusely, and you left all of that out.

This is disgusting behavior, Rick.

Thanks for demonstrating once again that you are just another
religious fanatic that will do anything to evade basic questions
about your beliefs. (Which, like all fundamentalists, you *believe*
to be facts.)

Here's the post that you are pretending to address above:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]

[...]

AC


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Alexander Mulligan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

heh.

I understand.  You can only end up looking like a complete fool so many
times before you start getting frustrated.  I have to admit, it takes you a
lot longer to realize that people are laughing at you than it would for
most, but I think you may have just gotten a hint of a shadow of a clue
here.

And don't forget stupid and ignorant.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Alexander Mulligan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

This is a highly inaccurate statement. I'll clarify my thoughts below,
candidly and honestly. And I'll go through what you said the first time as
carefully as I can, to see what I missed. I really do want to explore these
concepts. I'm not frightened at all.

There's nothing malicious in the comment. Again, I'll clarify my thinking
below and revisit what you said, in a sincere effort to understand what
you're saying. I must have missed something important.

You really are misreading me, Bruce. I'll try my best to get to the concepts
that you want to discuss here.

Your summation of me and my motivations are inaccurate, but of course you're
free to believe what you will.

Alright, let's go through what you said carefully now. I must have missed
something important, so now I'll try to find it.

Here's what you wrote:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION0212100000
000

Here's where I injected my latest comments, agreeing that observation is
indeed a common sense approach to learning, then adding that the rest of the
scientific method flows from natural human tendencies the in the same way,
and that its further development has been fueled by another natural human
drive for accuracy.

Those statements are directly relevant to what you posted. But let's go
through the previous post, the one you've cited there, and see if I can pick
up what I missed the first time.

When I read this the first time, I saw nothing to directly connect the
common sense idea of observation as a way to go about learning and these
ideas, which you appear to be claiming flow from that first common sense
idea about observation. That's why I asked the questions I asked.

Now to make my own thinking clear here, being human myself, I know what
sorts of things humans experience. What one gets through the physical senses
of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste is just a portion of the total
experience. There's a wide range of thought and emotional states that I, and
all humans, experience as well. You appear to be claiming that the common
sense idea that observation is a good way to go about learning somehow led
to the idea that none of this internal information is important. If that's
not what you're saying, then I need clarification.

To go on with what I think, abandoning introspective observation doesn't
make sense to me at all. In fact, I find it highly counterintuitive, because
as capable as I am of observing rain coming from clouds, I am capable of
observing my own thoughts and feelings, my dreams, meditative states, and
everything else I experience internally. Further, I'm capable of observing
how those thoughts, feelings, and other introspective observations affect
the way I interact with the world. It's the single most interesting and
important topic to me, our ability to observe our internal experience, and
how our internal experience affects how we interact with the world around
us. That's why I chose cognitive neuroscience as my area of study for
graduate school, and why my primary focus of study is on the interactions
between emotion and cognition (wholly internal experiences), and how those
interactions are expressed behaviorally.

So the steps you laid out there that end up with the conclusion that "the
universe is a mindless machine," seem very counterintuitive to me. I don't
understand how or why someone would go from the idea that observation is a
good way to go about learning to the idea that the universe is a mindless
machine, which is why I asked for clarification. They seemed to be very
on-topic questions to me.

Further, it seems that your entire argument is pinned on the idea that
somehow science led to the conclusion that introspective observations are
invalid. Is that what you're saying?

While I think this is generally true, it's doesn't clarify any of what you
said above. So I asked at this point why you think this is so, which is of
course on-topic for the discussion. You raise a point, I ask why you think
that... standard communication stuff.

Now here's the rest of the post that I snipped. I read it the first time,
but I'll go through it more carefully now, because it's clear that you think
I missed something important.

While I agree with this too, it doesn't clarify or qualify what you said
above. My questions about how one goes from the idea that 'observation is a
good idea' to the idea that 'the universe is a mindless machine' remain
unclear to me at this point. Though on the more careful reading, I think I
see the crux of the matter, that you think the scientific method precludes
introspective observation. Is that right? If not, I need clarification.

Okay. This could be the important part that I missed. Let's explore it. It
appears to me now that you're saying the reason one would go from the common
sense idea that 'observation is a good way to learn' to the idea that 'the
universe is a mindless machine' is because this archetype-person thought the
inspiration about observation was a universal Truth. Is that right?

It's still unclear to me why you think someone would abandon introspective
observations. Even if one felt that observation was the one and True way to
learn, that one still has the whole internal experience of being human to
observe. It's not as though one can ignore it. It's indicative of what we
are to have internal experiences. Why would people abandon them as invalid?

I mean, if the idea to abandon introspective observation came from this
inspired idea about observation, it had to be an introspective observation
that brought the idea into awareness in the first place. It doesn't make
sense to me that the very next step would be to abandon introspective
observation. But that's the leap you appear to be making. So my original
questions remain relevant and on-topic. Why do you think someone would start
to think that way? Why do you think someone would start to think
introspective observation is invalid? There's a step missing in the
progression of steps you've laid out so far, and I was, and still am asking
you to fill in that missing part.

But where did the idea to abandon introspective observation come from? So
far, all of your statements hang on that vital point, but you haven't
addressed it explicitly at all.

While I can  understand the feelings you're expressing here. I too am
troubled by the hideous way people exploit each other, other species, and
everything else in the world wherever they can, but none of this lament gets
to the essential problem you're exposing here, the turning point that you
appear to be claiming led to the state we're in today.

Why would people start to discount their introspective observation?

Rick


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
In alt.magick, Rick wrote:

This has to be a joke: Idiots can't operate computers.


author: Kaos

subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
On 6 Nov 2004 19:43:17 GMT, Alexander Mulligan
<[email]> wrote:

You seem to manage ok.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
Alexander Mulligan <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Maybe, but computers can operate idiots.


subject: Re: The Origin of the Scientif Method

text:
"Alexander Mulligan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Once again I've made a sincere effort to understand what you're on about,
asked reasonable questions where warranted, and rather than answer you fall
immediately to name calling and derision.

I'm done for now.

I may try again at some point though. I am eternally optimistic.

Rick