WilliamK
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by WilliamK
-
-
Condescending as ever, right Paul? Four letters weren’t necessary. A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with. But that didn’t suit your purpose or agenda did it?
I don't for a moment believe that you have any idea whether Paul made any phone calls, any more than you knew whether he had made any other attemp to meet with the administrators when you said this:
"Paul you never attempted to meet with Somma or any administrators. You then sent your son into a meeting with the administrators and claimed they would not allow you to be present."
And this:
"No. Read the post again. Paul never attempted to meet with the administartors."
Those are your words, are they not? Either that or we have multiple "Guests" posting with a truly remarkable continuity and consistency of style.
Tell me, Guest, do you make a habit of accusing people of things that you just make up? Things that you merely want them to be guilty of, but have no indication that they actually are? Is that honest? Is that honorable?
If it had turned out that he had made four phone calls instead of four letters, would you have then criticized him for not sending letters? If he had done both, would you have complained that he didn't just drop in at their offices unannounced, or stalk them while they did their grocery shopping?
So, is it true that "A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with."? I have no way to know. And I strongly suspect that you don't know either, just like the other wishes that you've asserted as if they were known facts. But even if true, it does not change that your original accusation was false. Even one letter qualifies as an attempt. And four should be enough to meet any sane person's definition of "due diligence".
How do you justify making such malicious and obviously fabricated accusations? Do you think it's ok because you judge Paul to be a bad person? Would it not be just as much of a lie even if he was the scumbag that you wish to paint him as? Are you so full of hate and devoid of integrity that you can't bring yourself to make an apology, or even just a bland retraction, now that you can clearly see that you've made a false accusation?
-
I don't support national healthcare, but right now our government spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada-which has it. I do believe we need to change the way we distribute aid to the poor so that people can afford to get back on their feet.
On your 2nd point, a former boss proposed something that I thought was pretty interesting. He wasn't advocating it, but just threw it out as food for thought.
Picture a progressive income tax based on a mathematical formula such that it changes smoothly rather than in discrete steps. Further, imagine that this curve crosses zero and becomes progressively more negative below a certain income level. Those with incomes in the negative tax bracket would receive money from the IRS rather than paying in. The curve would be close to linear at the low end, but taper off towards the high end so that it can never equal or exceed someones entire income. This tax curve would be more complex than a flat tax, but still much simpler than the current complex rules.
Here are some possible advantages to this:
1) It removes the disincentive that often happens with the current system, in which a person can be worse off by getting a job because of loss of benefits. In this system, loss of benefits (or increase in liability) would always be smaller than any gain in income. Conversely, to quit working and live on the public dole would always result in a loss of income.
2) It would be managed by a single entity, the IRS, and would not even be an additional job for them, but just an alteration of the tax rules. This removes the need for additional governmental entities, so should cost less to manage than current welfare programs.
3) Welfare cheating would become tax fraud. The IRS has existing methods to detect this, and formidable teeth to enforce it.
This is, of course, overly simplistic. Any realistic system would necessarily be much more complex.
Advantage #1, for example, has a fairly obvious flaw. That being that potential loss of welfare benefits isn't the only factor that gets people stuck on welfare. For example, a single parent can easily end up with little or even negative benefit from getting a job because of daycare expenses. And this can be a loss for both parent and child in non-monetary ways as well. This is also true for families living on a single, inadequate or barely adequate income. The one parent doesn't make enough to ensure a decent standard of living, and little or nothing would be gained by the other parent going to work. Some adjustment would be needed for such things if advantage #1 is to have any real impact.
Also, it would still be good to make some distinction between those who can't support themselves and those who merely choose not to. The negative tax should provide a painful enough existence to discourage able-bodied people from slacking, just enough that they have a starting point for pulling themselves up. But for those who have genuine mental or physical disabilities and simply can't support themselves, it should be basic, but not punishing.
It probably has more issues than I've thought of, but it is an interesting idea.
-
Psst, usually it's one word with only one capital letter.
The key word there is "usually". There's a good discussion of this here:
http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasi...ietnamORVN.html
I've only read about 1/3 of the posts there, but that was enough to get the gist of it. Which, best I understand it, is something like this:
Writing "Vietnam" as a single word is part of the Anglicization of it for use in English writing. However, In its original language, it is normal to write all syllables separately, even when belonging to a single word. Because of this, the Anglicized version is also occasionally written with the syllables separated. This is less common, probably because it confuses non-Vietnamese speakers who would normally interpret that to mean that it's two words, though it should rightfully still be considered as only one. Dropping the space and leaving the "N" capitalized is even less common, but is not unheard of. It keeps the syllables together so that it is identifiable as a single word, but still retains some sense of the Vietnamese style. Patriot's two variants are not what is most often seen in English writing, but they aren't necessarily incorrect. And, could arguably even be taken as an indication of having had a more intimate familiarity with it than those of us who have only read about it.
So, sorry guys. It looks like Patriot is in the clear on this one.
-
The message is good, but the messenger is a phony. ( A Viet Nam vet who retired so he wouldn't have to serve in Iraq. Too many years in between to make that a valid story ).
Thank's Patriot! This thread was far too positive. It sorely needed an unprovoked injection of hatred to give it some balance. Lucky for all of us, you proved yourself equal to that challenge.
-
However, the fact is that I had nothing to do with the Observer getting that story. They didn't need permission to publish because it was already online.
And if they had needed permission, it would make no sense for them to go to you for it. Would the accuser have us believe that you have a license agreement that allows you to control publication rights to Paszkiewicz' sermon outlines? That you own the copyright to the sermon? Or that you have a power of attorney or other authority to make such decisions on Paszkiewicz' or his church's behalf?
Even before your denial, it was obvious that the accusation was out of whack.
-
WilliamK, I do truly appreciate the work you did researching that quotation ... but that's not in Strife's signature, is it?
What are you up to, please?
My research went astray, obviously. But in the process, I stumbled upon a familiar and excellent illustration of why it is a good idea to not cite quotes that you haven't seen in context. It is also an illustration of how easy it is to perpetuate misinformation and even deception without having any intent to do so. Thus, citation of an erroneous or out-of-context quote is an indication of not having checked one's sources, but is not, by itself, an indication of dishonesty. I believe those are points relevant to this discussion, even if it isn't the same quote that started it.
-
Oops. I've made the heinous mistake of posting links without reading them first. I took the original poster's word that this was the letter containing that quote. It is not. It is still a good read, though. It reveals Adams to have been religious, but certainly not of the fundamentalist variety.
Feeding part of the beginning of the letter to Google, I found the text of it in a much more readable and searchable form here:
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html
It does, however, contain another oft-seen quote of Adams', which is often quoted out of context by fellow atheists in a way that distorts its meaning. Even in context, it gives no credence to the idea that Adams and the other founders had in mind to create anything other than a secular government, and in the following paragraphs, suggests the opposite. But neither does it show Adams to be anti-religious, as it appears to do when out of context.
Here's the isolated quote:
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if, there were no religion in it ! ! !”
That sounds pretty solidly anti-religious, doesn't it?
But here's the whole paragraph:
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if, there were no religion in it ! ! !” But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite society, I mean hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human nature, I believe there is no individual totally depraved. The most abandoned scoundrel that ever existed, never yet wholly extinguished his conscience, and while conscience remains there is some religion. Popes, Jesuits, and Sorbonists, and Inquisitors, have some conscience and some religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar, Catiline and Antony ; and Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will."
So, that should be a lesson about repeating isolated quotes. If you don't check the context, someone else undoubtedly will, and you'll look pretty foolish if that context turns out to make a big difference. You may not have intended any misrepresentation, so you may not rightly be guilty of accusations of lying. But still, the blame for not checking your facts is legitimate.
Then, of course, there's the other lesson about foolishly posting links without reading them first. Mea culpa.
-
Okay, now it's time to go one more step and cite the context, so I can see what you mean. I'll be happy to amend my quote if you provide this (actually, regardless, it's already high time to 'cycle' a few more in, as it's been a few weeks, but I'll keep the updated quote in my collection). So, let's see it; until then, it's an empty claim.
After a bit of googling, I eventually stumbled on a message board post with links to images of the original letter the quote comes from. This proved more difficult than I expected, as most hits were just the isolated quote. Unfortunately, these are somewhat difficult to read and not searchable. But here they are:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006645.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg
-
LET me stay with you? You wanted my daugter to stay by herself while you went overseas! She had to beg you to let me stay with her!
Holy cow! If I wanted to see this kind of freakish, vindictive, family dysfunction, I'd watch Springer or similar. I don't know why he didn't want you staying with his wife in his absence*, but I can sure see why I wouldn't want you spending much time around my family.
* Nor do I care to hear either side of that story, nor did I care to hear anything at all about it in the first place.
-
Who is more able to set the rules for justice than the Ultimate Lawgiver? JESUS came and died for you so that you could LIVE FOREVER! If you rejct HIS gift then you will be cut off from HIM, which is what Hell is!
Yes, indeed. And while you're at it, don't forget to pay homage to Jesus' good buddy, Hank:
-
By the way, how do you know all your critics are fundamentalists? Have they identified themselves as such?
How do you know he believes that? He'd be quite justified to think that at least the most vocal core of his critics are fundamentalists. That much has been made obvious by their own words. But he has never claimed that all of them are. That idea appears to be the product of your imagination, not his.
-
You must have been in a Kool-Aid coma, this thread ended 3 weeks ago. Glad to see you're awake.
Yes indeed, this discussion did go silent some time ago. But since it's now well past the time when O'Reilly was supposed to have talked about it, this seems like a good time to ask: Did O'Reilly ever talk about it? Anyone have a link to a transcript or video?
-
This is without question the most stunningly brilliant post I've ever seen from you.
-
Ye Gods! Just as HST was much too clever for SFPD, The original poster above was able to show via a third party admission that the LaClair boy is a victim of abuse at school.
Hubble Space Telescope was much too clever for San Francisco Police Department?
-
Last time I checked, Jesus' tomb was still empty!
Then you should reveal its location. You'll be famous (though probably not quite as famous as James Cameron).
-
Plants and animals get their energy from an outside energy source, it doesn't come from within themselves. Their energy comes from the sun.
Of course.
What is the outside source of energy for the univese Keith? If their is no outside source, it is losing energy and it is running down. It will one day reach uniform temperature left to itself.Nothing in the laws of thermodynamics requires the universe to lose energy. The first law forbids it other than by conversion to matter. And that appears much rarer than converting the other direction. Where do you get this strange idea that the universe should be losing energy?
My point was that those that believe in the "big bang" or apply gradualism to the univese run into problems with natural laws.Do they now? You'll have to do much better than displaying your misunderstanding of those natural laws if you are to convince anyone but the choir.
-
Bravo 2smart! The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will. Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature. This is not evolution, it is the opposite. The universe is actually devolving not evolving. Is devolving a word?
So, are you saying that evolution causes a reduction in the total amount of heat in the universe? That's what would be required for evolution to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It rather looks to me like all these plants and animals breeding and competing and living their lives produce quite a lot of heat. Whether they came about by creation or evolution doesn't change that.
Ah, but you're talking about creating "order", not reducing heat, aren't you? But that doesn't work either. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevented any increase in order, it would be physically impossible to organize a closet, or for a snowflake to form.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes a net loss of entropy in a thermally isolated system. It does not preclude a localized reduction of entropy in a non-isolated system. That's why it doesn't conflict with crystallization, turning sawdust into particle board, the construction and operation of your refrigerator, or evolution. None of those processes yield a net loss of entropy. They only move it around a bit, and create some more in the process. It doesn't matter that things like particle board and refrigerators are products of intelligent creators (us), because there are plenty of examples of non-intelligent processes that create order or reduce temperature, and because a law of physics that could be violated at will would not be a law of physics at all.
-
I don't have to search all of existence to know with 100% certainty that a square with three sides doesn't exist.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_square
Your intended meaning is correct, of course. I just found it mildly amusing that when you said "square with three sides", this entirely different meaning of the word "square" came immediately to mind.
You have to watch out for those alternate word meanings. Dishonest antagonists will sometimes use them to misrepresent what you say. Or sometimes even to misrepresent what they say, when it suits their purposes.
-
What's wrong with this picture: George Bush, an MBA from Harvard (first president to hold an MBA), former Governor of Texas and President of the U.S. being called an idiot by an under-employed high school graduate ??
How many times have you called someone who is more credentialed and accomplished than you an idiot?
-
Interesting show the other night on PBS. A debate between a christian and an atheist led to the following comment by the christian; "Neither of us know for certainty what awaits us beyond death. I believe in God and I believe this short "visit" on earth is simply to separate the good from the bad, to determine where we will spend eternity. Now, if I'm wrong, if there's nothing after death, then so be it. But if I'm right and when I die I'm accepted into the Kingdom Of Heaven, then I win. On the other hand, if you are wrong, then you've made the biggest mistake any human can make".
Everyone is destined for several other religions' punishment, and missing out on several other religions' reward. That being the case, the christian's odds are only marginally better than the atheist's. In other words, if Islam or some other religion were right, then the christian would have made "the biggest mistake any human can make", just like the atheist.
And if we allow that the one true god, whichever one that might be, might value honesty over feigned belief, then the atheist may well have better odds than the fire insurance christian.
Do you think that pretending to believe will get you into heaven, even if you don't actually believe?
I don't know about you, 2smart, but I can't just choose to believe something. I'm just not built that way. I could chant "I believe" 10,000 times, and at the end of it, all that would have changed is that I would have told exactly 10,000 more lies than before.
The "fire insurance" argument provides a good basis for deception of both one's self and others, but no basis at all for honest belief. This is true regardless of whether christianity is right or wrong.
-
That's not what I saw on the 6 pm news monday night (not a month ago). The story I saw referred to crosses on headstones that the ACLU was objecting to (the film showed large crosses in the cemetery).
Also, in the same story, an attorney was interviewed who stated that himself and 29 other attorneys were banding together pro bono to fight the ACLU on the issue.
Ok, then. So it's not the old chain letter, and not the Wiccan symbol thing.
Could you perhaps be referring to the story cited below (or some variant of it through a different source)?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/166056.aspx
The timing is right. And it does talk about a group organizing to fight the ACLU. However, it says nothing to support BushBacker's claim that the ACLU trying to get crosses removed from graves. So, the claim remains unsubstantiated, but it's the closest fit I could find.
Really guys, if you're going to float such outlandish and nasty accusations, you really need to come up with a better citation than "the 6 pm news monday night". Something that can be readily verified. In the absence of such, a retraction is in order.
-
My original goes back to green (I hope), your comment in red (your convention), my reply in grey. Thanks for the info on the quote function, 10 is woefully inadequate to respond to all your comments, I shall dispense with it from the beginning.
If I may offer a suggestion:
A simple way to deal with the 10 quote limit when replying to long posts is to split your reply into more than one post. Is there anything wrong with replying to different statements in different posts? I think it would considerably improve the flow of discussion if the splits occur between naturally separate topics, but I don't think it would hurt anything even when a single topic is split into bite-size chunks.
-
Actually, the "natural" chain of events becomes extraordinarily difficult to explain at the Planck time and prior.
Indeed it does. It is much easier to attribute such things to the supernatural than to keep trying to figure it out.
"God did it." The universal answer that can lay every question to rest. It has satisfied and comforted billions. And yet it has left them with no more actual knowledge, and even further from acquiring any, than if they had simply left the questions unanswered.
-
The point and obvious conclusion is that we do not know the answers to the ultimate questions.
Looks like this'll be tough on Mr. LaClair.
How do we know that we do not know unless we have some idea of the truth of the matter?
Yours is a self-stultifying claim. Unless you can rule out anyone getting it right, even by happenstance, your isn't capable of any support, [...]
A Magic 8 Ball sometimes yields correct answers, but this does not mean that it provides knowledge in those cases any more than when it is wrong. This applies as well to astrologers, psychics, prophets, and holy books as it does to Magic 8 Balls. Belief in unsupported revelation, speculation, and guesses does not equal knowledge, not even when it pans out.
[...] and the mere fact that you could know that everyone else is wrong reflects a default knowledge of the truth of the matter on your part.If all who claim to know the answer to a question fail to demonstrate a sound basis for their claimed knowledge, then it is entirely reasonable to consider the question unanswered.
This is a burden of proof problem. Those who claim to know, bear the burden of proof. That they might be right isn't a good enough foundation to build on. We need some indication that they are right.
In case anyone doesn't understand it, burden of proof is a purely practical matter. It doesn't posit that unproven claims are necessarily false. It claims no omniscience. It's just a sensible way to proceed in the presence of uncertainty.
Get with it, Paul. This is like the third time you've committed this rather elementary fallacy.And this is the umpteenth time you've accused someone of a fallacy while demonstrating illogic of your own.
Uh ... thanks for elaborating on your fallacy to such great length.
He put it rather eloquently. Once again, Bryan, in your zeal to belittle someone else you've revealed yourself the fool and cad.
Great News
in Kearny
Posted
That's the deficit, you imbecile, not the national debt. The national debt is still growing by leaps and bounds, just somewhat smaller leaps and bounds than last year. The national debt has already grown by 379 billion so far this fiscal year, and will likely grow another 125 billion or so by the end of it. For comparison, it grew by 574 billion in FY 2006.
All hail GWB and the Republicans in Congress! They've screwed us over less this year than last! It's pathetic. But I guess you have to resort to things like that when you're trying to make neocons look good.