| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Michael Varney" |
| Date: |
18 May 2004 08:09:44 PM |
| Object: |
Stupidity should be leathal |
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Folsom" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 01:01:08 AM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
Does stupidity include not knowing how to spell "lethal"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 01:20:24 AM |
|
|
"Mark Folsom" <folsom_snip_man@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:10alunjpk7db825@corp.supernews.com...
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
Does stupidity include not knowing how to spell "lethal"?
Irony.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 11:44:15 AM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 04:39:05 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
So is intelligence, if one wishes to go that route, except that it's
more subtle and a much larger subsidy. For example, the tax code here in
us is 10,000+ pages, most of which contains specific exemptions that
address specific individuals (disguised as a general exemption for a
business or personal circumstance for which it's hard to imagine that more
than one particular business or person could benefit). Our president, the
shrub, managed to provide a subsidy to one of friends by turning over
managenent of the permanant university fund which supports the public
universities in texas to his freinds' management company, which then made
the investment practices for that public money not subject to disclosure
to the public. Then, of course, there is enron and a lot of other
companies for which a few people benefit from the legality of the dubious
accounting practices they helped legislate that would be called fraud if
the average person used them to report their income.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 12:00:21 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncanmll.44m.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
So is intelligence, if one wishes to go that route, except that it's
more subtle and a much larger subsidy. For example, the tax code here in
us is 10,000+ pages, most of which contains specific exemptions that
address specific individuals (disguised as a general exemption for a
business or personal circumstance for which it's hard to imagine that more
than one particular business or person could benefit).
It is a problem in most western industrialized countries, certainly in
Australia. The tax legislation is becoming a behemoth no one will ever
understand. I have heard if it keeps growing at its current rate it will be
a monstrosity that is beyond any comprehension and rife for even easier easy
tax avoidance (it is pretty easy to do now with trusts and other schemes
that are always being reported in the financial news). It is just a red
flag to those with ideas how to manipulate it to avoid tax. Tax reform is
not just a nicety - it is imperative.
Thanks
Bill
Our president, the
shrub, managed to provide a subsidy to one of friends by turning over
managenent of the permanant university fund which supports the public
universities in texas to his freinds' management company, which then made
the investment practices for that public money not subject to disclosure
to the public. Then, of course, there is enron and a lot of other
companies for which a few people benefit from the legality of the dubious
accounting practices they helped legislate that would be called fraud if
the average person used them to report their income.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 05:02:29 AM |
|
|
In article <FXWqc.49133$TT.5621@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncanmll.44m.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
So is intelligence, if one wishes to go that route, except that it's
more subtle and a much larger subsidy. For example, the tax code here in
us is 10,000+ pages, most of which contains specific exemptions that
address specific individuals (disguised as a general exemption for a
business or personal circumstance for which it's hard to imagine that
more
than one particular business or person could benefit).
It is a problem in most western industrialized countries, certainly in
Australia. The tax legislation is becoming a behemoth no one will ever
understand. I have heard if it keeps growing at its current rate it will
be
a monstrosity that is beyond any comprehension and rife for even easier
easy
tax avoidance (it is pretty easy to do now with trusts and other schemes
that are always being reported in the financial news). It is just a red
flag to those with ideas how to manipulate it to avoid tax. Tax reform
is
not just a nicety - it is imperative.
Most of those complications in the last decade deal with "helping
the poor" not to pay taxes. And for the person who was bitching
about Bush....last year was the first time my taxes went _DOWN_.
It was the first tax law in all of my tax-paying years that
actually relieved middle class and lower incomes.
Yet people who got a "raise" from this law still keep spouting
nonsense to me about how only the rich got a tax break. Not
even real baseball bats will knock sense into their heads.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 05:35:58 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40ac90c0$0$3133$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
In article <FXWqc.49133$TT.5621@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncanmll.44m.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
So is intelligence, if one wishes to go that route, except that it's
more subtle and a much larger subsidy. For example, the tax code here
in
us is 10,000+ pages, most of which contains specific exemptions that
address specific individuals (disguised as a general exemption for a
business or personal circumstance for which it's hard to imagine that
more
than one particular business or person could benefit).
It is a problem in most western industrialized countries, certainly in
Australia. The tax legislation is becoming a behemoth no one will ever
understand. I have heard if it keeps growing at its current rate it will
be
a monstrosity that is beyond any comprehension and rife for even easier
easy
tax avoidance (it is pretty easy to do now with trusts and other schemes
that are always being reported in the financial news). It is just a red
flag to those with ideas how to manipulate it to avoid tax. Tax reform
is
not just a nicety - it is imperative.
Most of those complications in the last decade deal with "helping
the poor" not to pay taxes. And for the person who was bitching
about Bush....last year was the first time my taxes went _DOWN_.
It was the first tax law in all of my tax-paying years that
actually relieved middle class and lower incomes.
Yet people who got a "raise" from this law still keep spouting
nonsense to me about how only the rich got a tax break. Not
even real baseball bats will knock sense into their heads.
The point however is, it does not matter how you look at it, complex
legislation that is difficult to understand, that keeps growing in size at
an ever increasing rate, is simply making it easier for tax avoidance. You
create this industry of really smart people who pour over it looking for
loopholes that are paid for by an ever increasing number of people who have
greater and greater incentive to avoid tax due to bracket creep. The whole
thing is grossly inefficient. In Australia this recognized by the bodies
that accredits such people, such as the CPA. They have said only a simple
system where the tax rate for companies, individuals, and trusts are all
aligned with few if any exceptions will work. All others are easy targets
for abuse.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 02:51:48 PM |
|
|
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 04:58:34 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble is
there is more than a grain of truth in it. And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 05:32:35 PM |
|
|
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 11:51:07 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7gRqc.11$F5.1208@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van
de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus
with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Unfortunately true. I have given away my financial studies after a few
subjects because I am now sure I will not work anymore. But what I did
learn is that poverty is, by and large, bought about by bad financial
planning; at least in wealthy western countries.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 01:44:55 AM |
|
|
In article <%OWqc.49131$TT.47488@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7gRqc.11$F5.1208@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van
de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus
with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Unfortunately true. I have given away my financial studies after a few
subjects because I am now sure I will not work anymore. But what I did
learn is that poverty is, by and large, bought about by bad financial
planning; at least in wealthy western countries.
Yes, mostly so. A year or two ago, Oprah Winfrey (who, contrary to
what some think, is very sensible and anything but a "bleeding heart")
brought on her show a financial planner to explain to the audience
what are the roots of poverty. He started by saying "If we will take
everybody's money, divide it in equal piles and give everybody in the
society exactly same amount, within few years those who were poor will
be poor again, because they will keep doing the things which made them
poor in the first place".
Modern "compasionate" society confuses causes and symptoms. The fact
that the poor lack money is not the cause of their poverty, it is but
a symptom.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 02:53:20 AM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:HtYqc.17$F5.2009@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <%OWqc.49131$TT.47488@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7gRqc.11$F5.1208@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk
Van
de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble
is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus
with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Unfortunately true. I have given away my financial studies after a few
subjects because I am now sure I will not work anymore. But what I did
learn is that poverty is, by and large, bought about by bad financial
planning; at least in wealthy western countries.
Yes, mostly so. A year or two ago, Oprah Winfrey (who, contrary to
what some think, is very sensible and anything but a "bleeding heart")
brought on her show a financial planner to explain to the audience
what are the roots of poverty. He started by saying "If we will take
everybody's money, divide it in equal piles and give everybody in the
society exactly same amount, within few years those who were poor will
be poor again, because they will keep doing the things which made them
poor in the first place".
And it is not just frothing off at the mouth either - it is based on
empirical fact. Studies on people who came into money, invariably (by which
I mean 90% or more) show that they have spent it or fritted it away in one
way or another within a couple of years. If you do not know how to
accumulate assets then you will not know how to keep it. Read the
Millionaire Next Door for what it takes to be wealthy and how anyone can do
it - its easy. Simply adopt a policy of in all circumstances living below
you means and investing the difference. It is that easy (or hard). Thing
is of course most people want to be wealthy to spend money not realizing
that be become wealthy in the first place, and keep it, you need to do the
exact opposite.
Modern "compasionate" society confuses causes and symptoms. The fact
that the poor lack money is not the cause of their poverty, it is but
a symptom.
Too true.
Thanks
Bill
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 03:11:21 AM |
|
|
In article <QtZqc.49297$TT.490@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:HtYqc.17$F5.2009@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <%OWqc.49131$TT.47488@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7gRqc.11$F5.1208@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk
Van
de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble
is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus
with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Unfortunately true. I have given away my financial studies after a few
subjects because I am now sure I will not work anymore. But what I did
learn is that poverty is, by and large, bought about by bad financial
planning; at least in wealthy western countries.
Yes, mostly so. A year or two ago, Oprah Winfrey (who, contrary to
what some think, is very sensible and anything but a "bleeding heart")
brought on her show a financial planner to explain to the audience
what are the roots of poverty. He started by saying "If we will take
everybody's money, divide it in equal piles and give everybody in the
society exactly same amount, within few years those who were poor will
be poor again, because they will keep doing the things which made them
poor in the first place".
And it is not just frothing off at the mouth either - it is based on
empirical fact. Studies on people who came into money, invariably (by which
I mean 90% or more) show that they have spent it or fritted it away in one
way or another within a couple of years.
Yes. In some cases you end up truly amazed at how fast did they
manage to get rid of the money:-)
If you do not know how to
accumulate assets then you will not know how to keep it. Read the
Millionaire Next Door for what it takes to be wealthy and how anyone can do
it - its easy. Simply adopt a policy of in all circumstances living below
you means and investing the difference. It is that easy (or hard). Thing
is of course most people want to be wealthy to spend money not realizing
that be become wealthy in the first place, and keep it, you need to do the
exact opposite.
Aye, here is the rub. The two words that distinguish success from
failure are "deferred gratification". Those capable of it do not need
much help. Those incapable, cannot be helped.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 02:53:02 AM |
|
|
........... ...A damn right, it is a leathal, as there is already no
more dangerous than a stupid, whether, it does, somehow, sounds a necessity
of the existence which it does makes the things along the relativity.
However, generally how it could be known any intelligence if the stupidity
would not exist as along that matter, the vice-versa is an absolute clear
matter. Whether, the one should not be without to use or to step on the
other, one way or an other, as required sociologically.
Unfortunately or a fortunately, most of the time consciously or
unconsciouslly, does not change a single fragmentation along the relativity
among the socio-psychological behaviours.
Therefore, it is a something, which it does makes the one residing along a
natural as a subjective repetition along the events, as it does a definitely
makes the other to advance as to be shown what it should be if it could be
crossed any behaviours along those events, including the behaviours events.
However, which most of the time an extremelly a fastidious events allowing
an other fastidious behaviours which are a definitely, the uncertainty
principles, a definitely as a matter a fact, as a definitely the rest is an
other and a different story!!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:HtYqc.17$F5.2009@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <%OWqc.49131$TT.47488@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7gRqc.11$F5.1208@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <eMQqc.48085$TT.39518@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
Hobba"
<bhobba@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:oVOqc.9$F5.909@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <z9Mqc.117481$z_2.6434955@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk
Van
de
moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:wtyqc.56$oL6.66264@news.uswest.net...
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I don't agree with your thesis.
If stupidity would be lethal, this would be a dull place.
It should be subsidized.
But then again - it already is.
Yep:-)
We can sit around and have a little giggle about it, but the trouble
is
there is more than a grain of truth in it.
I know. More like a boulder than a grain, in fact.
And when we hear solutions to
problems many just regurgitate the same hack platitudes of giving thus
with
problems money and not doing anything about the cause. Sad really.
Just "not doing anything about the cause" would not improve matters
but not make them worse, either. What we're doing, however, is often
worse than this, downright detrimental in fact. The rule of "you get
what you pay for" cannot be circumvented. Thus, trying to deal with
problems by throwing money on them breeds more of same problems.
Unfortunately true. I have given away my financial studies after a few
subjects because I am now sure I will not work anymore. But what I did
learn is that poverty is, by and large, bought about by bad financial
planning; at least in wealthy western countries.
Yes, mostly so. A year or two ago, Oprah Winfrey (who, contrary to
what some think, is very sensible and anything but a "bleeding heart")
brought on her show a financial planner to explain to the audience
what are the roots of poverty. He started by saying "If we will take
everybody's money, divide it in equal piles and give everybody in the
society exactly same amount, within few years those who were poor will
be poor again, because they will keep doing the things which made them
poor in the first place".
Modern "compasionate" society confuses causes and symptoms. The fact
that the poor lack money is not the cause of their poverty, it is but
a symptom.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 04:55:49 AM |
|
|
In article <c8hocm$i7c$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>,
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote:
........... ...A damn right, it is a leathal, as there is already no
more dangerous than a stupid, whether, it does, somehow, sounds a
necessity
of the existence which it does makes the things along the relativity.
However, generally how it could be known any intelligence if the stupidity
would not exist as along that matter, the vice-versa is an absolute clear
matter. Whether, the one should not be without to use or to step on the
other, one way or an other, as required sociologically.
Unfortunately or a fortunately, most of the time consciously or
unconsciouslly, does not change a single fragmentation along the
relativity
among the socio-psychological behaviours.
Therefore, it is a something, which it does makes the one residing along a
natural as a subjective repetition along the events, as it does a
definitely
makes the other to advance as to be shown what it should be if it could be
crossed any behaviours along those events, including the behaviours
events.
However, which most of the time an extremelly a fastidious events allowing
an other fastidious behaviours which are a definitely, the uncertainty
principles, a definitely as a matter a fact, as a definitely the rest is
an
other and a different story!!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...
Translation, please?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
20 May 2004 10:35:34 AM |
|
|
........... ...You just did it!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Definitely!
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40ac8f30$0$3133$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
In article <c8hocm$i7c$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>,
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote:
........... ...A damn right, it is a leathal, as there is already no
more dangerous than a stupid, whether, it does, somehow, sounds a
necessity
of the existence which it does makes the things along the relativity.
However, generally how it could be known any intelligence if the
stupidity
would not exist as along that matter, the vice-versa is an absolute clear
matter. Whether, the one should not be without to use or to step on the
other, one way or an other, as required sociologically.
Unfortunately or a fortunately, most of the time consciously or
unconsciouslly, does not change a single fragmentation along the
relativity
among the socio-psychological behaviours.
Therefore, it is a something, which it does makes the one residing along
a
natural as a subjective repetition along the events, as it does a
definitely
makes the other to advance as to be shown what it should be if it could
be
crossed any behaviours along those events, including the behaviours
events.
However, which most of the time an extremelly a fastidious events
allowing
an other fastidious behaviours which are a definitely, the uncertainty
principles, a definitely as a matter a fact, as a definitely the rest is
an
other and a different story!!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...
Translation, please?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 09:17:29 AM |
|
|
Does that include stupid spelling mistakes?
--
Jeffrey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 09:19:03 AM |
|
|
"Jeffrey" <merlot@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:c8fq6b$7bk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Does that include stupid spelling mistakes?
Oh my god! Your arguments have changed my outlook on life. Thank you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fields" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 05:32:31 PM |
|
|
Lern to spel befour you caste aspershuns. ;)
--
John Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
18 May 2004 08:54:34 PM |
|
|
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
Just when you thought stupid had hit the ground floor, there is a
sub-basement. Don't eat your lab work. Cinnamaldehyde, the flavor of
cinnamon, is a standard organic lab prep. One microdrop placed on the
tongue will result in an ulcerous erosion that requires months to
heal. Don't eat your lab work.
Don't wear contact lenses in lab, either. They do, and they pay for
it. One of the easiest ophthalmic diagnoses is bulous keratopathy.
Your cornea has more pain endings/mm^2 than any other part of your
body. A blistered cornea can be diagnosed 50 feet down a corridor -
the screams are eloquent.
The obvious and simple solution is to ban chemistry, courtesy of the
Nanny State.
Physics has its Darwin Awards, too. The is a well-documented case of
somebody in the bad old days who wanted to see Cerenkov radiation, so
he looked down the output of a cyclotron. It was a lethal inquiry.
*****-tronauts see Cerenkov arcs from fast protons zipping through theit
eyes. Space Station Freedom FUBAR Space Hole One Alpha and Mir
cosmonauts both get radiation cataracts as souvenirs of their
residence.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "César Sirvent" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 12:41:02 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:40AABE5A.4FDD66F4@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
Just when you thought stupid had hit the ground floor, there is a
sub-basement. Don't eat your lab work. Cinnamaldehyde, the flavor of
cinnamon, is a standard organic lab prep. One microdrop placed on the
tongue will result in an ulcerous erosion that requires months to
heal. Don't eat your lab work.
Don't wear contact lenses in lab, either. They do, and they pay for
it. One of the easiest ophthalmic diagnoses is bulous keratopathy.
Your cornea has more pain endings/mm^2 than any other part of your
body. A blistered cornea can be diagnosed 50 feet down a corridor -
the screams are eloquent.
BuLLous keratopathy.
As for "horrible things" happening because wearing contact lenses:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/cornea.htm
Don't have protective goggles for the quemistry/biochem lab? And they are
not "graduated" for myopia? Stupidity is present in more places than you
imagine.
In general, "Both the ACS and OSHA have issued statements indicating that
contact lenses can be worn if and only if proper protective eyewear is also
worn" is reasonable.
http://www.cwu.edu/~chem/safety/labsafrules.html
though it is discouraged as it may worsen situation in case of an accident.
When I was in the lab, counting photon strikes from a Geiger-Muller
detector, we handle small pills of Ce-137. They were inside of a metal
protective capsule, but chances were that infinitesimal amount of dust
coming out of the pill could contaminate, so we were told not to eat or
drink anything and wash our hands at the end of the practice. When I was
told of that, I asked the teacher if I should incinerate my calculator,
pencil, notebook and clothes afterwards too, as I had touched them. Also I
made the extremely risk task of breathing, thus probably incorporating some
radioactive material into my respiratory and blood systems. If you want to
be safe 100% at lab, work at a high-security bio-hazard hi-tech lab. :-)
The obvious and simple solution is to ban chemistry, courtesy of the
Nanny State.
Physics has its Darwin Awards, too. The is a well-documented case of
somebody in the bad old days who wanted to see Cerenkov radiation, so
he looked down the output of a cyclotron. It was a lethal inquiry.
*****-tronauts see Cerenkov arcs from fast protons zipping through theit
eyes. Space Station Freedom FUBAR Space Hole One Alpha and Mir
cosmonauts both get radiation cataracts as souvenirs of their
residence.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 09:15:13 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40AABE5A.4FDD66F4@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
A blistered cornea can be diagnosed 50 feet down a corridor -
the screams are eloquent.
True.
--
Jeffrey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 01:25:31 PM |
|
|
(PSmith9626) wrote in message news:<20040519064040.22537.00000764@mb-m29.aol.com>...
Dear al,
I recall a friend in chem class who wanted to put glacial acetic acid (
vinegar)
on his sandwhich. It was lab strength.
best
penny
Saved his life, I did.
Don't eat your lab work.
Someone at secondary school drank a beaker of potassium dichromate
solution - this was in 1996, before the stuff was banned in schools
(probably as a result of too many fools drinking it).
<http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PO/potassium_dichromate.html>
Not particularly nice stuff. I wouldn't recommend anyone repeating
that stunt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 08:27:23 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40AABE5A.4FDD66F4@hate.spam.net>...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
Just when you thought stupid had hit the ground floor, there is a
sub-basement.
Long ago, I realized that there is no lower limit.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
18 May 2004 08:27:21 PM |
|
|
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I'm not necessarily convinced of evolution, but Darwinism does not seem
to be faltering in the above. Such actions tend rather to validate ....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
18 May 2004 08:35:20 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:EFyqc.3244$YB6.1683@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I'm not necessarily convinced of evolution, but Darwinism does not seem
to be faltering in the above. Such actions tend rather to validate ....
No, you miss the point. In a Darwinist sense the kid should have died and
not be able to pass on his genes. However, medical treatment saved his
life, and relegated his story to the front page of CNN with comments like
"He had a scare there!".
Not only that, but what little science curriculum in chemistry that school
has will now be killed as they remove the chemicals to make an idiot proof
classroom, while simultaneously funds will be diverted in the impending
lawsuits the parents (who are responsible for transmitting their stupid
genes) will inevitably bring.
The bottom line is now the kid will breed. Survival of the fittest my *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
18 May 2004 08:47:54 PM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:xRyqc.58$oL6.68132@news.uswest.net...
"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:EFyqc.3244$YB6.1683@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I'm not necessarily convinced of evolution, but Darwinism does not seem
to be faltering in the above. Such actions tend rather to validate ....
No, you miss the point. In a Darwinist sense the kid should have died and
not be able to pass on his genes. However, medical treatment saved his
life, and relegated his story to the front page of CNN with comments like
"He had a scare there!".
Not only that, but what little science curriculum in chemistry that school
has will now be killed as they remove the chemicals to make an idiot proof
classroom, while simultaneously funds will be diverted in the impending
lawsuits the parents (who are responsible for transmitting their stupid
genes) will inevitably bring.
The bottom line is now the kid will breed. Survival of the fittest my
*****.
Check out the book "The Marching Morons."
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
18 May 2004 10:40:59 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:Oa-dna7075ZSITfd4p2dnA@gbronline.com...
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:xRyqc.58$oL6.68132@news.uswest.net...
"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:EFyqc.3244$YB6.1683@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I'm not necessarily convinced of evolution, but Darwinism does not
seem
to be faltering in the above. Such actions tend rather to validate
.....
No, you miss the point. In a Darwinist sense the kid should have died
and
not be able to pass on his genes. However, medical treatment saved his
life, and relegated his story to the front page of CNN with comments
like
"He had a scare there!".
Not only that, but what little science curriculum in chemistry that
school
has will now be killed as they remove the chemicals to make an idiot
proof
classroom, while simultaneously funds will be diverted in the impending
lawsuits the parents (who are responsible for transmitting their stupid
genes) will inevitably bring.
The bottom line is now the kid will breed. Survival of the fittest my
*****.
Check out the book "The Marching Morons."
Had not heard of this book before and did a quick internet search. Quite
enlightening. Trouble is those that advocate we are getting stupider often
do not show full rigor in their reasoning either. Consider the following I
found in connection with the book
'O'Reilly was covering Al Gore's stunt of bringing some ordinary people into
his baggage train to ask for their opinions about things. O'Reilly himself
had brought in two ordinary people: a committed Democrat and a committed
Republican. It was the Democrat that caught my attention. She was a young
woman, described as an "Internet designer". O'Reilly asked her what she
wanted from the presidential candidates. He got something like this. "The
President is head of our government. The government should be responsible
for providing us with affordable health care and education." O'Reilly: "So
you want the government to give you money for your health care and college
tuition. That's the main function of the government, so far as you're
concerned." Ordinary person: "Yes." Watching exchanges like this, it's hard
not to weep. The lady is asked what she thinks government is for. Her
answer, in a nutshell: the government exists to give me stuff. This is raw
socialism. The fact that government doesn't have anything to give us; the
fact that governments can only give money to A by first taking it from B,
and is so grossly inefficient at doing even that, that B's dollar becomes
A's quarter; the fact that, as Margaret Thatcher used to say, "there is no
such thing as government money'"; these facts are not part of the mental
universe of this "ordinary person" - and presumably the same is true of many
others like her.'
Seems all quite reasonable does it not? Except when you examine the
evidence. Of course there is no such thing as government money - it is
simply a way of taking from A to give to B. But that is not to be confused
with the efficiency of the process. In Australia overheads for public run
hospitals is 3%, overheads of private insurance using private hospitals is
12%. Now where does the extra 9% go? - real value added stuff like
duplication of administration systems and campaigns for the zero sum game of
pinching members from other funds. In Australia our public health system is
under stress with long waiting lists. So what did the government do about
it? - gave a private health system rebate which has had zero effect. In
fact it is estimated that if all the money that had been spent on rebates
had been spent on the public health system then waiting lists would have bee
eliminated http://home.vicnet.net.au/~hissues/Text/Fordprivheainsrev.doc.
The fact of the matter is some things, due to efficiencies of scale, are
best handled by government, and others not, with still others handled by a
joint approach. No hard and fast rules are available, we must examine each
case on its merits and not invoke generalizations like 'is so grossly
inefficient at doing even that' without actually examining the facts.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupidity should be leathal |
19 May 2004 01:28:41 AM |
|
|
In article <Oa-dna7075ZSITfd4p2dnA@gbronline.com>, "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> writes:
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
news:xRyqc.58$oL6.68132@news.uswest.net...
"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:EFyqc.3244$YB6.1683@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
Darwinism is faltering.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/05/18/texas.chemical.ap/index.html
I'm not necessarily convinced of evolution, but Darwinism does not seem
to be faltering in the above. Such actions tend rather to validate ....
No, you miss the point. In a Darwinist sense the kid should have died and
not be able to pass on his genes. However, medical treatment saved his
life, and relegated his story to the front page of CNN with comments like
"He had a scare there!".
Not only that, but what little science curriculum in chemistry that school
has will now be killed as they remove the chemicals to make an idiot proof
classroom, while simultaneously funds will be diverted in the impending
lawsuits the parents (who are responsible for transmitting their stupid
genes) will inevitably bring.
The bottom line is now the kid will breed. Survival of the fittest my
*****.
Check out the book "The Marching Morons."
As well as its prequel, "The Little Black Bag".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
