"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fu7srj$tup$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:66mq9eF2jh90hU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Which is not what we were talking about.
>> So he's really not relevant to this discussion.
> yes he is, as he saw the picture you did not apparently,
You've changed the subject, Dave; your original claim was not that this
friend had seen a picture, but that he was doing, or had done, some sort
of
research on UFOs.
Now you're claiming he's relevant because he's seen some unspecified
picture.
You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
>> Why are you asking for evidence that dead people don't commit crimes?
> Because I don;t think they do, I think that executing people would
reduce
> crime, despite all those that say it doesn't work.
Ah, you're conflating two separate issues.
Dead people do not commit crimes; no-one in their right mind would suggest
that they do, and indeed no-one _has_ claimed any such thing. Therefore,
yes, the death penalty certainly prevent the criminals who are executed
from
re-offending.
however, there is (quite separately) evidence that suggests that the
existence of the death penalty does not _deter_ people from committing
crimes in the first place. That is, would-be criminals don't think to
themselves "Hang on, I'd better not kill anyone, because if I'm caught, I
might be executed". Or, more factually, when the death penalty is
introduced, it doesn't reduce crime rates overall, and when it's
abolished,
it doesn't increase crime rates overall.
Tose are two separate issues. So when people say that the death penalty
doesn't reduce crime, they don't mean that it doesn't prevent the people
who
are executed from reoffending, they mean it doesn't deter people in
general
from committing crime.
Do you understand the distinction that I've explained?
>> Neither of which are relevant here, of course; we're talking about
>> whether academics are OK with their peers disagreeing with them.
>> (Also, the murder thing? You're wrong about it. You were wrong right
from
>> the start. You misunderstood, really quite dramatically, what I said,
and
>> then when corrected, refused to take account of what I had _actually_
>> said, preferreing to stick with your own error. It's actualy kind of
sad
>> that you're still dragging it up as an example of you being right, when
>> actually, it's an example of you being not only wrong but deliberately
>> and stubbornly wrong in the face of the evidence. But do carry on; it's
>> only yourself you're making a fool of there.)
>
> Lying again. Same old story with you isn't it.
I'm not lying; feel free to go back through the archives and check. You'll
find several instances of me explaining to you that you are
misrepresenting
my position, and several posts of me explaining what my position
_actually_
is, and many many instances of you then going on to get it wrong _again_.
In fact, let's settle this; you go and find one single example of me
_actually_ giving an inaccurate definition of murder; go for it, find even
_one_. If you can find one, I will concede that you're right. If you
can't,
you'll concede that I'm right (either by saying so, or by failing to
provide
the single case I'm asking for, in which case we can take that as a
concession), and then if you bring it up again, I shall mock you roundly,
and point to your failure to demonstrate the point you keep on and on
trying, and failing, to make.
Fair?
>> It doesn't reall matter in this particular case though. The do***ents
of
>> the time suggest that the Pope took personal offense at Galileo's work.
> The docunmaent of teh time also showed that the Earth was the centre of
> the solar system does that make them right too.
No; do you understand, though, that there's a difference between
scientific
fact, and people's opinions?
If I say "My opinion of the colour green is that it's jolly nice", that
doesn't give you any scienctific facts at all; it proves nothing about
what
the colour green is _actually_, objectively, like. However, it _does_
offer
evidence for my opinion of the colour green, and in future years, if
someone, for some obscure reason, decided they wanted to know my opinions
on
the matter, they could gotary proof, and give it as evidence of my view of
the colour green.
Do you understand that?
Similarly, the do***ents of the time may not give accurate proof of
scientific facts about the universe, but they _do_ give accurate evidence
of
what people thought and felt. So no, the do***ents of the time don't tell
us
that, as a matter of fact, the sun went round the earth, but they do tell
us, factually, that the Pope was personally offended by Galileo's work.
Do you understand the difference?
>> It doesn't mean the Catholic Church were right to convict him of
heresy,
>> it doesn't mean he was wrong in his work, it really doesn't mean very
>> much, except that he was tactless and that if he'd been more careful he
>> might have got away with it.
>
> Galileo wasn't;t stupid why would he risk annoying one of the most
> powerful
> men in the world that could quite easily have put him to death. ?
> does that really make sense to you.
Well, it's not something I would have done. But by publi****ng on the
subject
of heliocentricity, he was knowingly putting up the backs of a lot of
powerful people; as you say, he wasn't stupid, and he knew full well that
the Church as a body would not accept heliocentricity.
He also knew that the Pope had told him to moderate what he wrote and put
both sides of the argument, and yet he chose not to do so.
So perhaps it doesn't make sense, but it is, absolutely beyond any shadow
of
doubt, what he did.
>> Right. But if you want to know whether the Pope _thought_ Galileo was
>> taking the piss out of him, you're better off looking at what the Pope
>> himself said to his cronies, and what his cronies said to him.
>
> And what was that then ? Where has the Pope ever said that Galileo was
> taking the piss out of him or even suggested such a thing.
You'd have to check with the various historians who have studied the
do***ents of the time. I haven't studied them, so I can't give a detailed
answer.
> The Pope was told what to think by faked do***ents that Galileo had
> never written.
Eh? Which faked do***ents would those be? Faked by whom, and for what
purpose? And where are you getting this from? Are you suggesting that the
Pope somehow didn't have access to the book Galileo actually wrote?
> A good way of silencing Galileo was to lie about what
> he said and as calling the Pope a simpleton wouldn't be a good thing for
> anyone to say that time in History, it would then be seen as a good
excuse
> to
> at the very least limit Galileo's freedom of speech rather than try to
> disprove his
> correct science which others outside the church believed it those inside
> had to dispute in order to keep their views on the solar system and God
to
> be the
> only true explanation. The catholic church and some of it's sup****ts
lied
> cheated
> and murdered their way through History why stop with Galileo
Who exactly do you think was at the bottom of this apparent conspiracy?
And
what evidence is there to sup****t anything at all that you've just said?
I'm
very intrigued by this re-write, although it's a little bit too Dan Brown
to
take very seriously.
>>> They needed a reason to discredit him,
>>
>> They ahd plenty of reasons to discredit him; he had committed heresy.
> An offence that others had been executed for, but many peolpe believed
> him.
It doesn't matter whether people believed him; heresy was a crime, and he
committed it.
>
>>They didn't need to say that he'd insulted the Pope, and indeed they
>>_didn't_ say so at the time; not publicly. He was not convicted for
being
>>a rude sod, he was convicted for heresy (which he had, without doubt,
>>committed, even though he was right).
> So what evidence is their that he did insult the Pope ?
His book, for one thing. Tell you what, you go and read the book that
Galileo wrote, and then when you've read it, come back and we'll discuss
it.
OK?
>
>
>> You seem to think that the Vatican might have some interest in
pretending
>> that the Pope was personally insulted; they really don't. It just
happens
>> to be the case.
> Except that is where I and other disagree with you.
But you do so simply on the basis of your gut feeling, without actually
having looked at any of the evidence. In fact, when I've shown you
evidence
that sup****ts what I'm saying, you've arbitrarily dismissed it, by
claiming
that the people who wrote it hadn't looked at the right evidence, or that
they had but the evidence was out of date, or that they were Catholic
(although you had no evidence that they actually are) and therefore their
accounts aren't valid (although there's no reason why a Catholic should
lie
about this) and so on.
In other words, you've employed all the tricks used by irrational fundies
who want to go on believing that the Bible is the literal word of God,
regardless of any evidence.
> What would Galilio have to gain from making fun of teh Pope
> while under house arrest for all those years,
He wasn't under house arrest when he wrote it.
As to what he'd have to gain from it, well, what does anyone have to gain
from making fun of someone whose views they think are silly?
>> They didn't need to prove him wrong; at the time, it was illegal to put
>> forward the theory of heliocentrism. he did so, so they did him for
>> heresy. They didn't _need_ to manufacture other reasns to come down on
>> him. You've really got it all _very_ confused in that sub-standard
brain
>> of yours.
> They also had every right to kill him as they had done with others in
the
> past so why didn't they kill him ?
Perhaps because he had been a friend of the Pope. Perhaps because they
wanted to seem enlightened. Perhaps because by that stage he was old and
sick, and it would seem brutal to kill him.
I dunno, there could be lots of reasons, but the fact that they didn't
kill
him doesn't really sup****t your theory that it was all a conspiacy to
silence him, does it? I mean, if they'd wanted to silence him, they could
have executed him. In fact, if they'd wanted to silence him, they could
have
prevented him from publi****ng his book in the first place (assuming by
"they" you mean "The Catholci Church"). But actually, they let him
publish,
and they didn't execute him, so they can't have been _that_ keen on
silencing him.
The reason was because he wasn't the
> only one that believed in heliocentrism, soem other inm****tant people
> of teh time also believed in it,
But I'll bet you can't name one.
and galilio was well respected throughout
> Europe
> As with modern politics it's far better to snip at personality than
> anything factual,
> so saying he toko the piss out of the Pope was a good reason to keep him
> 'locked up'.
But they didn't say that. It's actually only fairly recently that it has
been generally believed that personal offence was part of the reason the
Pope turned on him. You've been assuming, then, that at the time, within
Galileo's lifetime, the Vatican made a big fuss about how he'd hurt
Popey's
feelings? No,that didn't happen.
Really, Dave, would it ever occur to you to actually find out some
reliable
information before forming an opinion and arguiing about it?
>> "Amended"? What does that even mean? He _was_ guilty.
> He wasn't guilty of taking the piss out of the Pope.
Well, he wasn't prosecuted for taking the piss out of the Pope, no. And
there were no court records saying that he took the piss out of the Pope.
So
what makes you think someone amended some court records to claim that he
did
take the piss out of the Pope? You really just don't have enough
information
here, Dave; you're making stuff up, and hoping that you're getting it
factually correct, but you're not. Go and read an actual biography of
Galileo, or indeed of the Pope. Find some actual facts, instead of just
making up crackhead conspiracy theories and pretending that they're
factual.
>>>> plus letters from and to the various relevant people, possibly
journal
>>>> entries, that sort of thing.
>>> All held and contolled by the catholic church.
>>
>> So what?
> Because they altered the do***ents in any way they could.
Who altered which do***ents, and what is the evidence that this happened?
And for that matter, why would anyone do so?
>> No, of course I'm not. I'm simply saying that if we want to know
whether
>> the Pope was personally offended by Galileo's work, the bets, indeed
the
>> _only_ way to find out is to look at what the pope himself said.
> And where do we get that information from oh yes official records
produced
> years
> later by the catholic church yes excellent evidence.
Please answer this question, Dave; the Catholic Church had Galileo bang to
rights for heresy; they tried him for it, found him guilty, and sentenced
him to house arrest.
Why would they need to manufacture do***ents suggesting that the Pope was
offended by what he'd written, years later? What purpose would that serve?
>> But look at what you've just done; one minute you're claiming that the
>> historians who sup****t what I've said didn't look at the original
>> evidence, and the next, you're claiming that the original evidence is
>> "out of date".
>>
>> So what evidence do _you_ think one should look at in order to
determine
>> wether the Pope was personally offended by Galileo's book? Be specific
>> please.
> You lok at what was actually said
By whom? Where do you find records of what was said?
and then you can think about
> whether or not the simplton in the text really was set up to be the
Pope.
And have you looked at Galileo's book?
>> *shrug* It's entirely possible that the Pope wouldn't have prosecuted
>> Galileo if he hadn't felt personally offended by Galileo's work; or at
>> least, that he would have been less harsh on him.
> And that was a god enough reason for the catholic church to push
> the idea,
Eh? Which idea? What reason? Please be more specific, because I have no
way
of knowing what you mean, and you know how you ***** and moan if I
accidentally misunderstand what you're saying. So say what you're saying
_clearly_, please.
>>There's no way of proving that, of course, but we know that the Pope was
>>originally a sup****ter of Galileo, we know that he gave him permission
to
>>publish his book,
> And why would he do that if Galilio0 was taking teh piss out of him.
He didn't know, at that stage, that Galileo was going to put the Pope's
opinions in the mouth of a fool. He knew that Galileo was going to propose
the theory of heliocentrism, and he gave him permission to do so (although
with some conditions, which Galiileo igored), but not exactly how he was
going to present the argument.
>
>>and we know that, once it was published, he changed his tune and came
down
>>hard on Galileo.
> well I wonder why ?
Well, yes; one possible reason (given what the book actually says) is that
he was personally affronted. What do you think the reason is?
>
>> We also know that it is entirely possible to interpret parts of the
book
>> as a satire of the Pope and his views.
> It is possible but only if you believe in the lies.
Which lies?
> theer was never any reason for Galilio to take the piss.
> Why would he take such a risk he wasn't stupid after all
Well, no, he wasn't, but he _did_ take the piss. Read the book, and you'll
see.
>> "In the study, he analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988
tests
>> with other samples from the famous cloth."
>
> So why do this if teh original sample was valid ?
Because he didn't think it was valid. But actually, the BBC is
misre****ting;
he _didn't_ test it against other samples taken from the cloth. He looked
at
the cloth as a whole, but that's not quite the same thing. They manage to
make it look as though he's re-run the dating tests, both on the original
samples and on some other samples, and that's not the case.
>>> But what sort of contamination,
>>
>> Could you answer my question? Do you understand that the two claims are
>> entirely different?
> contamination was from the fire.
Could you answer my question, please? Do you understand that the objection
made by Rogers is entirely seperate from, and different to, the claim made
by Ramsey?
>> Right; well, his Usenet History demonstrates that he's a grepping loon.
> In you opinion would you care to prove that.
>
> How about you show some posts which show what a loon he is.
*sigh* You haven't actually understood a word I've said about grepping
loons, have you?
>> Well, in that there's very little information given, yes. But that only
>> means there's more reason not to accept what he says as truth.
>
> Accept it fits in with what I have heard.
That's exactly what Fundamentalist Christians say when they hear some
piece
of "evidence" (for which read "hearsay" which fits in with their beliefs.
>> Yes, and he's provided no evidence for that, but you believe him
anyway.
>
> Whenever I include a link you delete it.
You've included several links, none of which actually contain any evidence
to sup****t what he's claiming.
>> But reoffending woudl be included in the overall crime statistics. If
>> reoffending was reduced, there should be a (small) reduction in the
>> overall crime stats.
>
> Why ?
Are you seriously asking me that? Do you honestly not understand what I'm
saying?
OK, let's express this in simple terms. Let's say we have a big bowl of
fruit, consisting of apples, oranges, and grapes. We can count up the
number
of items of fruit, including all the apples, all the oranges, and all the
grapes. Yes?
OK. Now, if we remove some orangs, and then we count again, there'll be
less
fruit overall. Yes?
OK. Crime stats include reoffending, and new offending. If we reduce the
amount of reoffending, there'll be less crime overall.
Got it?
they recorder overall crime, there's no reason to believe they'd be a
> measurable reduction after just 1 year especially if most prisoners
> have at least a 1 year sentence if not longer.
So how did he come up with a figure of 70% reduction in reoffending?
>
>> A question, though; if you don't think the stats you cited show
anything
>> about his claims, why did you post them?
> I didn;t say that but at least there is evidence that they exists
> especally
> when you said there wasn't any.
I didn't say there weren't any crime figures, I said there wasn't any
evidence to sup****t his claim. And indeed there isn't.
Now, please answer my question; why did you post those crime stats, if you
realised that they don't sup****t your claim?
>> No, but it also means there's no evidence of a reduction in
reoffending.
> Because other prisoners became inmates so the total number of prisoners
> doesn't alter that much due to non reoffending.
Those weren't the figures for "number of people in jail", they were crime
figures. Not the same.
>> Not my field.
>> But if I were to do it, I'd do it properly, and re****t the results
>> properly.
> That's because that is yuotr field as you put it.
> In yuotr field your also unlikely to have to lock you samples up
> or be responsible for them, or have much to do with them other than
> the short periods you study or test them.
> He's job is to keep them off the streets and if possible make sure that
> when
> they do return they don;t reoffend.
So what you're saying is that it's not his job to make over-ambitious and
unsup****ted claims about having reduced reoffending by 70%? So you're
saying
he's actually not doing his job?
H
|
