Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Steve Kilbane 18 May '01

18 May '01

> ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Something bothering you? > Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > > > >Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper. > > > > > > > > > > I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for you > as > > > >well? > > I've read them. You're wrong. Um, you're replying to your own comment here (which I assume is a mistake). > Britannica.com: > > "Austrian-born British philosopher (b. July 28, 1902, Vienna, > Austria-Hungary--d. Sept. 17, > 1994, Croydon, Surrey, England), believed that knowledge--particularly > scientific > knowledge--evolves from individual experience and cannot be verified through > inductive > reasoning. Popper postulated that since no one can ever observe and verify > all possible > evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct, it is necessary only to > discover one > observed exception to the hypothesis to prove it false." > > Have you found an observed exception to my hypothesis, Steve? First off, you either haven't read all of the above, haven't understood it, or are ignoring it. So here it is again: "knowledge [...] cannot be verified through inductive reasoning." and: "no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct" both of which mean you can't *know* you're correct, and it's your assertion that you both can and do, to which I object. I don't need to provide any counter evidence - the possibility that such might exist is enough to remove certainty. But since you're asking, yes: there is no direct evidence what manner the limiter's malfunction takes. You're claiming it's in the subtext, but that's just another wording for "an educated guess," and one which I've pointed out is a bad one. Since it's not explicit, it's not verifiable, which means that aspects of your conclusion that depend on your assertion about the limiter are not verified either. In summary: one of your "facts" is pure supposition, meaning your conclusion is arguable, and your method flawed. The same goes for your "one version of correct". Generally, you've said it was "the text", but refused to define "text" when asked to. Yesterday, you said: > If the director doesn't like how the actor does it, s/he will ask the actor > to redo the scene. The director tells the actor how to do it, and puts the > audience right. which conflicts with your frequent assertion that the writer is the one who's in control. Not to mention admitting that the production process involves change, however small (some does not equal none). So your "body of evidence", from which you draw everything else about your conclusion, is actually a morass of interpretation, in itself. Given that, stating that you're undeniably correct is just absurd. However, I don't expect you to agree to any of this. More likely, you'll do one of: - just say "you're wrong", without any supporting argument. - be sarcastic, without any counter argument. - go off on a tangent in the hope that I will forget that you haven't answered. - give a largely meaningless phrase (cf "animal camoflage"). - ignore the bits you can't disagree with. but that's okay. Whether you accept the point is not my problem. What I think is more important is that you've at least read *some* of the text you quoted about Popper and, at some level, learned something about constructing an argument. Whether you admit it or not, I hope that it'll help you in later life, and improve the quality of your hypotheses and debate. steve

1 0

Re: A word of warning
by Steve Rogerson 18 May '01

18 May '01

Jenny said in response to me: >>Have you the guts to answer these questions? > >Yes. The first question was: >Jenny has said to a number of posts: "When animal camouflage breaks >down..." >What exactly do you mean by this? which you never answered -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5 http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: When "Animals" camouflage...
by Sarah Thompson 18 May '01

18 May '01

> breaks down... > > http://members.aol.com/ashton7/animals.jpg > > Annie LOL and ROFLMAO! This is great, Annie & Leah. Looks like an illo for one of Steve's stories...;) Sarah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: crimes and punishment
by Tavia 18 May '01

18 May '01

Jenny wrote (of Iain): >A friend like you is a rare thing, and needs to be cherished. >I hope Steve realises this. Thanks Jenny, you've made my day. The image of Steve cherishing Iain is not one lightly forgotten... Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] A word of warning
by Ellynne G. 18 May '01

18 May '01

Annie, an extra vote of sympathy from my corner. I remember a man who commented on the crimes committed 'when great malice and great cowardice meet.' Of course, he was a historian trying to explain less pleasant traditions - ways to poison an enemy's fields - largely forgotten in our own time. The sad thing is that people have come up with new nastiness - poisoning the web - to replace it. The sadder thing is that someone we know and care about is the victim. You hang in there, OK? Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Truth
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

"Neil Faulkner" wrote > > > >From: Jenny Kaye > > > > > There is a mindset on Lysator that states that all IMO's are valid. They > > > aren't and that kind of behaviour if translated to the outside world, is > > > going to cause some people on this lyst immense problems. It could even > >get > > > them killed. > > > >(a) Who says that such behaviour is translated to the world beyond Lysator, > >if Lysator functions as a social environment distinguished from others by > >the validity of all IMOs expressed within it? Lysator does not exist in a vacuum. > >(b) If it does cause some people problems, shouldn't that be their concern > >rather than yours? Free choice can only exist if the people are aware of the alternatives. You are aware of the alternatives, you have made your choice. Other people aren't so lucky. Give me a chance to give them a chance. They deserve that at least. Please. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

When "Animals" Camouflage...
by Ashton7＠aol.com 18 May '01

18 May '01

breaks down... http://members.aol.com/ashton7/animals.jpg Annie

1 0

RE: [B7L] Re: A word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

"Rhonda L. Stroud" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >ehalf Of Steve Rogerson > > > > Jenny has said to a number of posts: "When animal camouflage > > breaks down..." > > > > What exactly do you mean by this? > >Thanks for asking about this. I have been assiduously deleting every >thread >that Jenny's been involved with for a week now, but I saw Warning from >Ashton That's interesting. >and I thought I'd better check it out. That's even more interesting. >I didn't understand this at >all. > >As for encouraging people to willful and malicious mischief, I realize I'm >old, but didn't people use to get their Net access pulled for that kind of >BS? When animal camouflage breaks down. Freedom City? There's no such thing. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Space Fall
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

"Sally Manton" wrote > >Tavia wrote: > ><It's also interesting that Jenna is sent over to the Liberator (and a high > >assumed probability of death) with the two men without any comment either > >from Leylan or, for that matter, from Blake.> > > > >I've always assumed that the three of them were now under sentence of death > >anyway, as the ringleaders: They would have been under normal circumstances. In my Leylan/Raiker analysis I show that they are kept alive because they have become pawns in a power game between Leylan and Raiker. Let's take a look at that whole scene. JENNA: How do you feel? Jenna quite clearly cares for Blake. BLAKE: Sick. Blake feels sick for two reasons. 1/ The revolt failed 2/ Although Avon, Jenna and Blake are still alive he has some doubt about Leylan. The doubt came in when he was restrained by the guards and Raiker punched him in the stomach. Just before the punch was delivered Blake looked Leylan in the face, and he saw something. AVON: So you should. What a fiasco. You could take over the ship, you said, if I did my bit. Well, I did my bit, and what happened? Your troops bumble around looking for someone to surrender to, and when they've succeeded, you follow suit. Basically that's a very accurate description of what has happened. JENNA: What do you think they'll do to us? BLAKE: Something unfriendly. Blake is very worried. He doesn't know what's going on. JENNA: For a while, I really thought we'd made it. BLAKE: [Sighs] It was my fault. It was his fault. It was bad leadership, but the fact that he recognised the fact is encouraging. Some people are unable to admit when they are wrong. It's a rare gift to do otherwise, and Blake possesses it. AVON: We know. That's Avon twisting the knife a bit. BLAKE: I'll try and do better next time. Blake sees this as petty point scoring. It is but there's a reason for it... AVON: We had one chance. You wasted it. There won't be a next time. Avon is right. Only fate saves them from execution. JENNA: In which case, you can die content. Jenna is angry here. She is attracted to Blake and Avon is attacking him. Worst of all, she knows that what Avon is saying is true. AVON: [Almost laughs] Content. Again the transcript got it wrong. It should read, "Content?" JENNA: Knowing you were right. A very clever and insightful answer that. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Orac
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Julia Jones wrote: > > >If Orac had been given the choice in the so-named episode would it have > > >preferred to go with Servalan or with Blake? Orac shows enough > >understanding (as > > >distinct from awareness) to make a reasoned choice. > > > > > >(The choice might be between doing 'nothing but Federation work' or > >'exploring > > >the galaxy.) > > > >As it turned out, the choice was between the person who murdered Ensor > >Jr and then Ensor Sr, and the people who tried to save both men. Orac's > >protestations of non-emotion always struck me as being about as > >plausible as Avon's. If Servalan ever does get her hands on the > >fishtank, she'd better be damned careful. She's right. That is a very insightful answer. Funny that. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7