Throwing fits and insulting people

No, but I am reading his The pleasure of dinding things out.
He sure had spunk! But he also had integrity.

If one wants to act like a star, one better give a star effort.
 
GB: but I will be damned if I settle for being a "bastard, prick and cunt when it comes to the exchange of ideas".

No greenberg you don't have to settle but that doesn't rid the world of bastards pricks and cunts. That is what you either have to ignore or challenge becaues they do not share nor have sympathy for your ideals. If you really want a 'pure' approach you wouldn't be in a thread like this you would only post in the hard science forums and discuss nothing else. Its free thoughts, governance, about us, religion and any topic that has to do with human beings that are not 'pure'.
 
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
GB: but I will be damned if I settle for being a "bastard, prick and cunt when it comes to the exchange of ideas".

No greenberg you don't have to settle but that doesn't rid the world of bastards pricks and cunts. That is what you either have to ignore or challenge becaues they do not share nor have sympathy for your ideals.
Click to expand...

hey lucy

i dunno a "bastrd prick and cunt " doesnt sound to bad, i'd prefer that to eating a hedgehog with hannibal lecture......

~~~~~~~~~~~~

cheers
zak
 
Orleander said:
maybe a female one wouldn't be, but, a male one???
Click to expand...
Dear Orleander

thank you for your insightfull analysis

what a male hamster actually covered with pricks!!! i am not just talkign about one prick here i am talking about loads of pricks sticking out of the main torso of the body!!

~~~~~~~~

cheers
zak
 
Lucysnow said:
No greenberg you don't have to settle but that doesn't rid the world of bastards pricks and cunts. That is what you either have to ignore or challenge becaues they do not share nor have sympathy for your ideals.
Click to expand...

In this case - they are not merely my ideals. More people share them.


If you really want a 'pure' approach you wouldn't be in a thread like this you would only post in the hard science forums and discuss nothing else.
Click to expand...

Alas, every social criticism will sooner or later turn on itself. It is inevitable.

But not speaking about these things does not improve the state of affairs either. All too often, standards are simply implied, in the hopes that people have internalized them, they're taken for granted.

Says Feynman in his Cargo Cult Science:

...
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

...
(bolding mine)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top