In article <118_9811061943 at gastro.apana.org.au>, terrys at gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
>> From: "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:33:25 -0500
>>> I suspect that if majority vote were to rule, the following might be
>> adopted:
>>If ever science were to include, as part of it's validation techniques,
>`majority voting', then it might be worthwhile considering whether your
>undemonstrated and untested assertion had any substance..
>>> Mind--that part or faculty of the human soul by which it knows and
>> reasons as distinguished from the power to feel and to will.
>>> I say this because the large majority are religious and only the
>> minority deny the soul. My argument is that it is the brain that
>> thinks, the soul is aware only. Probably most who work in cognitive
>> and allied sciences envision "mind" as an homunculus that selects
>>Your `argument' is merly an assertion, and by no stretch of the
>imagiantion a *scientific* argument. This being so, your proposing it as a
>suitable topic of discussion in a science forum, together with the lack of
>any method of testing, any supporting data, or even a hint as to how such
>data may be gathered, isn't merely ineptitude personified, but an outright
>breach of netiquette.
What?
And who are you, suckazoid?
What powers of sucking allow you to intepret that "netiquette"?
You came here to peddle guilt and fear?
Under what authority you proclaim appropriateness of an argument?
Do you have a license to suck directly from the priest?
What YOU have produced in that paragraph is nothing, but a big
pile of shit of the lowest grade.
If YOU don't see ANY way to approach it, then just stand on
the side, and let others wrestle with this problem if they
wish. You just keep sucking the party line and bite your own
ass, with all these ideas of "netiquette", generated by the
evil powers of control, domination and opression.
Stay away from the domain, where they enquire into
THAT WHICH IS, unless you are willing to get your own hands
dirty and put your own mask of personality aside
and dig deep inside yourself, enquiring into who YOU are.
>>Your need for an `homunculus' was a concept in studies considered until
>the late nineteenth century - an result of the acceptance of `religious'
>ideas as other than wishful thinking and pipe-dreams. For you now to
>suggest that such ideas are part of scientific methodology, and offer the
>source of such untestable phenomena as a viable [and in any way equal]
>alternative to the straw-man you construct is behaviour I find
>intellectually and morally disgusting.
And you suck worse than a black hole,
mr. suckazoid, pretending to be a scientist of intelligence,
knowing nothing, but reciting somebody elses ideas.
Why don't you go and suck a dead donkey ass.
Who knows, the revelation may happen to you.
>Terry
