A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 14:31 In article <8bog0sF559U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to > > > around the > > > > > > > > > > world than science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at > the > > > game, > > > > > > > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot > in > > > the > > > > > > > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is. > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to > proven > > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > > > There are those who believe in God and evolution. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. > > I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to illustrate > that the former requires more faith than those who believe in pig guts and > astrology. Duh. It requires no faith at all. It is a theory about how life has come to be as complex as it is today. > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and development > of life. No. Because the central tenet of "deistic" evolution is that there is someone waving a magic wand to make it happen. > > -Greg -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 14:33 In article <8bog73F69tU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message > news:5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com... > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > wrote: > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > >before Darwin. > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > >from something else. > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > DNA. > > It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations > fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or > extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record. > There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one > species to another. > > -Greg Fascinating. If that's true, there should be fossils for every species that exists to day in every strata of the fossil record... ....but there aren't. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: MNMikeW on 2 Aug 2010 14:36 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-503459.09054202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <8bo395FkeiU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-502865.13452630072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > In article <8bgrh0FvcoU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-C06CE9.13143130072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >> > In article <8bgpttFmcfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:alangbaker-EDCC5B.13025030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >> >> > In article <8bgp49Fhh5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:dra656dounn78rv7lt2qppvaa6sbkal8tl(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:42:27 -0700, Alan Baker >> >> >> >> > <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>In article <8bgo0iFaphU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> >> >> >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > You mean "She made the statements that Breitbart >> >> >> >> >>> > deliberately >> >> >> >> >>> > distorted", don't you? >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> Breitbart didn't distort anything. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Yes. He did. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Editing a video so that you leave out information that totally >> >> >> >> >>changes >> >> >> >> >>its meaning is distortion. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > There's no way to get the far right to view anything without >> >> >> >> > an >> >> >> >> > un >> >> >> >> > jaundiced eye. "None so blind...." you know. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > BK >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Perhaps you two should see it for yourselves. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp- >> >> >> >> awa >> >> >> >> rds >> >> >> >> -ra >> >> >> >> cism2010/ >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Perhaps you should realize that that is not a video of her entire >> >> >> > speech >> >> >> > and even Breitbart now admits it was a distortion of her actions: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the >> >> >> > first >> >> >> > video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed >> >> >> > position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before >> >> >> > she >> >> >> > held >> >> >> > that federal position." >> >> >> >> >> >> This correction has nothing to do with what is on the tape. Just >> >> >> when >> >> >> it >> >> >> was >> >> >> recorded. >> >> > >> >> > No. The correction has nothing to do with when the video recorded, >> >> > but >> >> > when the events that were described on the tape took place. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The full video is 43 minutes long. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Don't you think a real journalist would have reviewed that before >> >> >> > putting up cherry-picked sections of it and passing judgement? >> >> >> > >> >> >> What makes you think he didn't have the whole video? >> >> > >> >> > If he did, that makes his actions even worse, because it has been >> >> > pretty >> >> > much universally agreed that anyone who has seen the whole video >> >> > could >> >> > never have made the claims of racism that Breitbart made. >> >> > >> >> > You're really digging yourself a hole here, Mike, and for what? >> >> > >> >> I not digging anything. Breitbart is attempting to show racism at the >> >> NAACP, >> >> not specifically to Sherrod. Whether you think he does or does not >> >> accomplish this is debatable. >> > >> > LOL >> > >> > So he's trying to show racism by release a cherry-picked portion of a >> > speech that doesn't actually show racism if you actually watch the >> > whole >> > thing? >> > >> Seeing the crowd laugh during her "white farmer" tale was telling. > > And now you start the deflection... > In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer. Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance. http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 14:36 In article <8boh4nFc4iU2(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-B6E70C.09060602082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <8bo3ajFkiaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> news:alangbaker-51149A.13460030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> > In article <8bgrk7FbjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:alangbaker-5220E0.13145830072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> >> > In article <8bgpp7FlhfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:3db65615cpe39s1qjhqr94pvjppkrdpn6n(a)4ax.com... > >> >> >> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:46:15 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> >>news:cs96565pcht63vii7n6ufcncmpdil3l6k4(a)4ax.com... > >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:21:37 -0500, "MNMikeW" > >> >> >> >>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> The White House has apologized. Breitbart, who started the > >> >> >> >>>>> mess, > >> >> >> >>>>> hasn't. He's an idiot. > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>Breitbarts target was the NAACP, not Sherrod. She made the > >> >> >> >>>>statements. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>> Try to watch this without your mind being closed and see where > >> >> >> >>> the > >> >> >> >>> origins of the problem were. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=shirley+sherrod&hl=en&safe=off&cli > >> >> >> >>> ent > >> >> >> >>> =sa > >> >> >> >>> far > >> >> >> >>> i&rls=en&prmd=nuvo&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=mlBITJDrMIS8lQe > >> >> >> >>> UlZ > >> >> >> >>> yiC > >> >> >> >>> w&s > >> >> >> >>> a=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsQQwAA > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> BK > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Did you see the video posted on Breitbarts site? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Not on his site, but on news sites. Obviously Sherrod saw them > >> >> >> > too > >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> > she wouldn't even think about suing him. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Well if you saw what Breitbart had posted, you would have seen that > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> included the part where she said she had the revelation that it > >> >> >> wasn't > >> >> >> about > >> >> >> black and white. She has no case. > >> >> > > >> >> > That makes it worse, doesn't it? > >> >> > > >> >> What? The leftys have their thongs in a bunch over how Breitbart > >> >> supposedly > >> >> edited out the part about Sherrod and her "revelation". He didn't. > >> > > >> > And making accusations about her racism aren't worse when you know they > >> > aren't true? > >> > > >> They are just fine and dandy when the left does it. > > > > Failure to answer the question, Mike... > > > Why don't you go to Brietbarts site and get the info yourself. He isn't here defending it: you were doing that. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 2 Aug 2010 14:41
In article <8boghaF8egU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com... > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > @charter.net says... > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > > > >from something else. > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > > > DNA. > > > > Where did the DNA come from? > > > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of > > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he > > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing > > going on. > > I think there is a bigger question at hand. Matter, left on it's own, > decays from complex to simple. The big question is how matter was formed > out of nothing, collided, then sparked life, then became increasingly > organized and complex. From where I sit, intelligent design is the only > rational answer. > > -Greg Only because when asked the next logical question ("Where did the designer come from?"), you cover your ears, shy away, and hide. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |