Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos >mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
---------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
#2, please.
How ironic.
--The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos >>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are >>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or >>>so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
#2, please.
How ironic.
--The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos >>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are >>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or >>>so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only theyNon sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
can?).
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
--
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,--
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see >something that is not there".
--Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue >> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,--
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
didn't. Let's try again...
Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic" >non-sequitur.
<snip remaining>--
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in >>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak >>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
#2, please.
How ironic.
missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
Thus "Say what?"
Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further >rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful >stupidity.
--The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos >>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are >>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or >>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>>>> > new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness. >>>>>
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September: >>>>>
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0600, the following appeared inWhat would be added for someone to be blind to their blindness:
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:That does seem to be an interesting conundrum, doesn't it?
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
something that is not there".
Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post >>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue >>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy >>>
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness. >>>> --
--
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see something that is not there".
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,--
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 12:54:00 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue >> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
I'd say "the blind" refers to a condition that is involuntary and more
or less permanent , while the "willfully blind" refers to a condition
of choice and so contingent. As such, the phrase alludes to three
monkeys rather than any Asian religious philosophy. YMMV.
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,--
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
[...]
Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a >>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
blind ;)
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Perhaps you could set aside your personal acrimony long
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote:Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in >>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak >>>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
#2, please.
How ironic.
missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
Thus "Say what?"
Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a >>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further >>>rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful >>>stupidity.
enough to remember that CW *has* no context and references
no poster; the statement stands on its own.
Perhaps you could turn off your willful blindness to recognize that
Harran's CW is a consequence of his willful stupidity. As for your
expressed line of "reasoning", it's incoherent and non sequitur, as
your "*own posts*" don't inform the point or show what you claim it
shows.
--The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos >>>>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are >>>>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or >>>>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where >>>>>>> > new species came from.
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness. >>>>>>>
-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September: >>>>>>>
====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human >>>>>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:42:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:41:11 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>No, it did not, at least not in my feed. Neither did your
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
didn't. Let's try again...
Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic" >>>non-sequitur.
claimed reply. The second repetition did, as did this one.
<sigh> Willful blindness strikes again.
Assuming you're not playing stupid words games, your "this" refers to
the following:
**************************************
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700
Message-ID: <3u77nihpatd733irjcask7f9758frdnthj@4ax.com> >*************************************
which is the original to your repost:
***************************************
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700
Message-ID: <nl18nihbesl5b1h8jlc9eaiurko2mmjhc6@4ax.com> >*************************************
I replied to your original post here:
*************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500
Message-ID: <efb9nilfnh78a608erdmjck9o58nmql9qa@4ax.com> >***************************************
Your denial of the facts makes your posts a self-parody. An irony
here is you make the same stupid mistake here that you and others did
before, to deny the fact that some posts are going missing and
inspired my comment about willful blindness, which in turn inspired
Harran's willfully stupid Chez Watt.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
something that is not there".
I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
“And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.
Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
here…”
--Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post >>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue >>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy >>>
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness. >>>> --
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
so far in December) that I saw.
Vote for your favorite.
== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
new species came from.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how >>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?).
something that is not there".
I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
“And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.
Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
here…”
--Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.
I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post >>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue >>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy >>>
Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness. >>>> --
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> >>>> wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they >>>>> can?).
something that is not there".
I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I seeI suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> >>>>>> wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they >>>>>>> can?).
something that is not there".
I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the >>> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context: Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
two.
Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away!
When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
[...]
Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a >>>>> point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
blind ;)
including who the participants were.
Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
post that I was responding to.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
[...]
Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a >>>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully >>>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the >>>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez >>>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
blind ;)
including who the participants were.
Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
post that I was responding to.
--
In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting perceived slights. Sometimes these things escalate into things that drive long term cascades of indignation and strife.
On 2023-12-12 2:17 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote: >>>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> >>>>>> wrote:I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see >>>> something that is not there".
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>
Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they >>>>>>> can?).
I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the >>> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context: Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
two.
(Hmmm, from the UK? You misspelled "generalize".) Be that as it may, I
am not sure what context you are referring to. The context for my
comment was a response to the original Chez Watt nomination where I concluded that I was among those being chastised for being 'wilfully ignorant' of a missing post. True, due to my killfiling habits, I am wilfully ignorant of the posters original post though I often see them
2nd or 3rd or ... hand. But a 'missing' post? I am just ignorant, the
same as everyone but the poster.
an absence, that means we have a mental model of the absent thing, and sometimes this mental model is so deeply ingrained that it can dupe us into believing the object was really present.something that is not there". I'd say that generally, if we perceive
Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away!
When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...
Love it, but a little deep for my tiny brain.
I go with things like:
Twas midnight on the ocean
Not a streetcar was in sight
The sun was shining brightly
And it rained all day that night.
or
Thirty days has September,
April, June, and no wonder
All the rest like peanut butter
Except Grandma who drives a Cadillac.
Although I occasionally dip into the *Collected Works of Lewis Carroll*.
But he was a mathematician and so expected to be a little... off?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:16:06 |
| Calls: | 9,826 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,208 |