Re: Weekly posting summary

"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:669pb4F2ghdm9U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:fto3ol$ok2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:664aj4F2ifojaU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> That's right. But of course, they don't _need_ every book ever
written;
>>> most of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing.
So 
>>> we
>>> just make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library, 
>>> plus
>>> accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
>>> assigned.
>>
>> There's rarely enough money in any but the highest funded universities
>> to have sufficient books for everyone.
>
> Not true. There's not enough money to have enough copies of every single

> book for everyone to have one, but that's not necessary.
I never said it necessary did I ?


>>> But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that
I'm
>>> aware of,
>> It was on a friends who course was unexplained UFO's it was
>> called Ufology  or something he got a degree in it, not that it's very 
>> useful
>> but the idea was  not that he find the truth but how he went about 
>> finding the truth
>> which should  be relevant to any so called researcher.
>> Whereas yuo called anyone that didn;t agree with the weather ballon a 
>> liar.
>
> Can you show me where I did that?
No, but I'm not prepared to go searching any more than you are.

>>> We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to 
>>> that.
>>> OK?
>> My friend was an undergraduate student  at UEL, you may have heard of
it.
>
> And how is your friend relevant to this discussion?
His university degree project was to interview those that have either seen

UFOs
(that's not alien space****ps BTW) or have had some experience of
unexplained phenomena.




>
>>> What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem?
>> well I know captial punishent aka the death penalty DOES reduce 
>> reoffending
>> I can find loads of evidence of it. But can yuo find any research that
>> sup****ts  such an idea.
>
> Are you seriously asking me whether there is evidence that dead people 
> don't commit crimes?
No I'm asking you whether there;'s any journal or official academic paper
that has data that shows that capital punishment reduced reoffending
You either can or you can't.

>>>as you seem to think; academics thrive on disagreement.
>> Not with their peers they don't.
>
> Yes, Dave, with their peers, they do! I grew up with academics, I am now

> an academic myself; I really do know what I'm talking about.
That doesn't prove anything.


>>> I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view sup****ts
what 
>>> I
>>> said.
>> It sup****ts what you said because they sup****t what was said at the
time
>> they showed nothing new.
>
> that's right; I wasn't making any new claims, I was talking about what 
> happened several hundred years ago. You said it didn't, they said it
did. 
> They know more than you do.
They know what they have been told to believe mor than either of us.

>The evidence sup****ts what I claimed. You chose to dismiss it, and claim 
>that it was biased, simply because it sup****ted what I said rather than 
>what you said.
> That makes you pretty much like a Creationist who refuses to accept the 
> fossil record because it doesn't agree with what they believe.

But you or they haven't presented any such 'fossil'

>
>> But can you prove that they are actual historians looking at History 
>> rather than
>> just sup****ting what the authorised version of the Boble says.
>
> Eh? They weren't talking about the Bible, they were talking about the 
> Pope's reaction to Galileo, and yes, they were proper historians.
But they didn't know the Pope did they, and the only records they had
we what the catholic church said Galileo said.


>>>That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
>>>renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know
more
>>>than you do about the subject,
>> Why should I, well not about that particular point anyway,.
>> They probably haven't looked at any new evidence in 30 years.
>
> It being history, there isn't any new evidence, you ****ing moron.
Theere has been new evidence of most things over the years.
Teh catholic church rejected anything for about 300+ years that
disproved anything they said, regarding where we are in the 'heavens'
Galilaio proved that, withyt eh sup****t of other Astronmers of course.

> They have, however, looked at the evidence from the actual time in 
> quetsion, while you havewn't. So yes, damn right they know more about it

> than you do, and the fact that you could suggest otherwise demonstrates 
> that you are both an arrogant prick and a ****ing moron.

What evidence have they looked at ?
They show no evidence other than what the views the catholic church had at

the time.
Those so called historians used do***ents used by writers of popular
history
rather than original do***ents from the time.


>> It's not a gut feeling it was evidence via a professor of astronomy
that
>> has recently studied the subject in enough depth to teach it.
>
> Astronomy is not history. He may know a lot aout the stars and planets, 
> but that doesn't mean he knows the first thing about a renaissance
Pope's 
> reactions to Galileo's work.
But that was part of his studies, but tehn whebn yuo wer challeneged

Then just find this part that say Galilaio
"find ANYTHING in the book, as Galileo wrote it and submitted it for
permission to publish, that associates Simplicio with the Pope rather than
with conservative philosophers."

But when this task was set you failed to do it, you just pointed to
what someone else believed at the time.
Now why can';t you just quote the section in Galileo words that
you claim indicates that the Pope was simpleton.
I'm not interested in beliefs just the text.


>>> In that, you're really very like the people, whom you crticise on a
>>> regular basis, who believe every word of the Bible because they simply
>>> _know_ it's true, no matter what the evidence says.
>> That's not me.
>
> it really is; look just a couple of paragraphs up; you're claiming to
know 
> more about history than historians who have spent their lives studying
the 
> subject.
No not that I know more but someone else does in fact more than one
person.
True historians look at evidence not just what other historians have said
in 
the past.



> They also pull exactly the same trick you've just pulled; they'll find, 
> say, an eminent lawyer, and then claim that because _he_ says evolution 
> didn't happen, they are too looking at the evidence. This is just like
you 
> claiming that you have looked at the evidence because you read something

> an astronomer said about Galileo; the lawyer may be eminent, but he's
not 
> a biologist, so his views on evolution are not relevant. And your 
> astronomer may be an excellent astronomer, but he's not an historian, so

> his views on history are actually not relevant, particularly when they 
> come into conflict the views of actual historians who have studied the 
> subject.

But your so called historians aren't looked at evidence they are looking
at 
previous
records kept by the catholic church that's all.
Just like asking the military what happened at Roswell you'll get the same

story
a weather balloon over and over again for the 50 years until the time
limit 
ended.
Then  they came out with spy balloon.


>> I've no idea whether the Turin shroud has an imprint of Jesus all I
want
>> them to do it a  proper test for the age of the shroud at the very
least.
>> Rather than have to accept a corner that was know to have been replaced

>> after a fire.
>
> Which is not what they did. I don't know where you've got that idea,
From the news reprots of the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm
Raymond Rogers says his research and chemical tests show the material used

in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into 
the shroud to repair fire damage.

http://www.physorg.com/news123173694.html
Professor Christopher Ramsey of Oxford wants to check the theory that some

type of contamination of the cloth caused the carbon-dating tests run in 
1988 to mistakenly peg the shroud as a medieval forgery

Do you think you know more about this than Professor Ramsey ?


> but it's incorrect. The material which was tested was from the original 
> fabric of the shrough, not from a later repair.


>
>>>> I didn't call him a ****wit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon, 
>>>> which
>>> he was.
>> Because he disagreed with you ?
>
> No, because he's a grepping loon he greps for certain terms,a nd then 
> leaps in with a standard response, regardless of the context of the 
> discussion or where it's being held, and then he wanders off to do the 
> same thing elsewhere. That's what a grepping loon is. That's what he
did. 
> Therefore, he's a grepping loon.

Didn't seem like that to me. He seemed to know far more about it than you.
You were the one claiming that  Galileo wrote it in Latin when in fact he 
wrote it in italian.



>
>>> Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based
ones.
>> So with regard to gay marriage I';d expect some sort of chemical test
>> or something factual tell  me why gay people can't use the term
married.
>
> And again I say; we're talking about _Scientific_ viewpoints. Gay
marriage 
> is not a scientific issue. Stop going off on tangents.
So it's not decided from a scientific viewpoint so what organisation can
ignore science and scientific evidence ?


>>> Did any of them provide evidence to sup****t _his claim_ about
reoffence
>>> statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
>> I didn't expect them to considering NO test like this has ever been
done.
>
> So in other words, no; there is absolutely no evidence to sup****t his 
> claim.
And none to distute it.

> So in accepting it as true,
What do you mean accat that it is true to yuo accept that Texas and the 
prison
and the sheriff himself all exists.

>you are adopting a faith-based approach; he said it, and therefore you 
>believe it, without evidence and without question.
If you can show me evidence that this prison doesn't exist or that no one 
painted
any thing pink in this prison or you can find evidence that it was all a
lie 
then
do so.


>
>> You've claimed that no one else has joined the two test/studies you are

>> going to do,
>> so will you accept you must also be wrong because there's no evidence
>> of any one else doing the same therefore they can't be validated, which
>> therefore makes you wrong.
>
> Eh? That makes no sense; can you explain it more clearly?
If as you claim no one has done the testing you have then how will you 
validate them.
or is it that someone just has to see you testing in order that the
results 
you get are right.



>>> even though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found
>>> (those crime stats you linked to); why?
>> What other evidence didn't it fit in with ?
>
> Which bit of "those crime stats you linked to" did you not read?
The bit were you said they didn;t fit in you've yet to say what you mean,
as first of all ther was no data, then I pointed it out and now it doesn;t

fit it ?
Please explain why it doesn't fit in.
What were you expecting to see.



>>> Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here,
>> Buy actually understanding what said even on a so called reliable and 
>> reputable site.
>
> *heh* Davem you believe a politician when he says, without any evidence,
What do you mean without any evidence.

> that he's reduced reoffending by 70%; what exactly do you think you know

> about reliable sources?
But I original called it a test nothing more that's why you tried to claim
I 
said
study, because no study has yet been done.
If it needs to be proved then that's the next stage.





>>> That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
>>> parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves; 
>>> that's
>>> what we do for a living.
>> I thought you claimed no one made money out of such things.
>
> No-one gets rich off it, certainly.
Did I say anyone gets rich from anything.
You said no one made any money from research why did you lie yet again.
People do make money out of research quite a lot in fact, all our 
researchers get a
 salary and that salary is higher than a technicians salary so I guess 
technicians
don't make money either, and then there's barstaff in pubs they make far 
less
money than researchers so I guess you'll claim that barstaff don't make 
money
from serving .


>>> The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs
doesn't
>>> mean we're not thinking for ourselves.
>> I don;t base my beliefs aroubnd faith.
>
> Yes, you do. it's not religious faith, but you go with your gut feeling,

> or with what some (unqualified or heavily biased) person says,
Everyone who disagrees withy you is unqualified or heavily biased aren't 
they.


>
>>>> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it
from
>>>> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
>>>
>>> I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing 
>>> sentence
>>> ending. Would you like to try again?
>> For 50 years it was claimed to be a weather ballon, you also believed
it 
>> was a
>> weather balloon,
>
> I believed it was mre likely to be a weather balloon than an alien
vessel, 
> certainly.
You agreed with the military because you hadn't seen the evidence
but believe what they said the evidence was, that IS NOT evidence.
You';r doing exactly the same with Galileo and whether or not he said the 
Pope
was a simpleton. But where';s the evidence I want the evidence not
evidence 
that
someone even a so called Historian says but actual evidence quoted from
Galileo writings.



>>> But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy
the
>>> original wheel, correct?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create
new
>>> stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
>> In most cases yes.
>
> In other words, it is absolutely necessary to refer back to what other 
> people have said in order to do any sort of research.
Research is about re-searching, rather than just saying I agree with the 
bloke that
did it last time.
If you keep looking at the old materail you'll neer find anything new.



>
> In other words, everything you think I believe about the Bible is
_wrong_. 
> You're _wrong_. Try to get that through your thick skull. Use a nailgun
if 
> that will help.

You argued that the translations were correct when they weren't.