On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote inBe aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
<v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:
jillery wrote:
[...]
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:Nope, Clip-n-Snark is about it.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote inBe aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
<v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:
jillery wrote:
[...]
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
That said, it's been noted that all the terms in the Drake
Equation beyond the third are sheer conjecture based on zero
evidence; IOW, WAGs, not even SWAGs.
On 2024-05-08 22:52:44 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:Nope, Clip-n-Snark is about it.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote inBe aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
<v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:
jillery wrote:
[...]
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
That said, it's been noted that all the terms in the Drake
Equation beyond the third are sheer conjecture based on zero
evidence; IOW, WAGs, not even SWAGs.
You took the words out of my mouth. The Drake equation is pure
speculation, not remotely scientific.
On 5/9/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:46:11 +0200, the following appeared inExactly. I knew Frank and talked with him about it. The point was to >identify what we knew and didn't know, and suggest where future efforts
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>:
On 2024-05-08 22:52:44 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Agreed. To be fair, however, I believe it was generated as a
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:Nope, Clip-n-Snark is about it.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> <v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:Be aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
jillery wrote:
[...]
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
That said, it's been noted that all the terms in the Drake
Equation beyond the third are sheer conjecture based on zero
evidence; IOW, WAGs, not even SWAGs.
You took the words out of my mouth. The Drake equation is pure
speculation, not remotely scientific.
basis for discussion, and was never intended (by Drake) to
be rigorous. Those who quote it as semi-gospel (IIRC we had
a rather loud one here a while ago) lost track of that or
simply ignored it to advance a personal agenda.
ought to be concentrated. Back then (early 70s) we knew significantly
less than we do now, but what we don't know continues to dominate.
"Pure speculation" isn't the case.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 01:19:16 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> trolled:
jillery wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> trolled:
What could a REASONABLE person REASONABLY expect to result
from your post here?
You have an UN-reasonable understanding of what is reasonable.
You're mentally unhinged. You invited a negative response
and then used that negative response to "Prove" that you're
attacked for no reason.
You're describing the person you see in a mirror.
That's pretty fucked up, but also pretty typical of a lot
of narcissists.
You're here to hide from your stupidity. You're here to
present yourself, to you, as someone who isn't a mental
invalid, and I get in the way of that fantasy.
Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
So your parents ARE still alive! That's really nice for
them. Almost makes up for having you...almost.
Your momma.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 486 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 132:37:33 |
| Calls: | 9,657 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,707 |
| Messages: | 6,166,641 |