[quote]It has been 46 years since Bell invented the telephone and spoke those famous words "Mr. Watson, come here I want you"[/quote] Erm, rather longer than that, I think. Bell was issued with a patent on 7 March 1876, a little over 132 years ago. The famous first transmission you quote occured three days later.
JoeUser Forums
73% - Never set foot in the USA, and have no particular interest in so doing, yet I qualified. Incidentally, did anybody else notice that when there was an 'All of the above' option, it was almost invariably the right answer? Surely that's not particularly intelligent questionnaire design.
[quote]I agree and since you did it first, apparently you lost. Thank you for conceding. And better get a new dictionary if you cant figure out the sycophantic moan part.[/quote] Balderdash (Bowdlerised). I called you a 'doctor of naught', which is no more and no less than precisely what you are. But tell me, how is life in kindergarten?
[quote]Ah, another sycophantic moan![/quote] sycophant - n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. (American Heritage Dictionary) How can a 'moan' be an attempt to flatter, and just whom did you have in mind as the influential party it was supposedly directed at? The use of long words is not quite so impressive if it is clear from the context that the writer doesn't
[quote]But I fail to see how you showing 2 wrongs proves a right.[/quote] I didn't, and it doesn't. I did not mention 'wrong' or 'right', and claimed neither for this alternative presentation of the statistics. On the contrary, I offered a specific invitation: [quote]You be the judge.[/quote] That you chose to respond not to what I wrote, but to what you obviously wanted me to have written, speaks volumes, oh doctor of naught.<
[quote]So, assuming we're taking Al Quaeda as the 'correct' answer, what we have here is an American 'high ground' based upon an error rate of one in four.[/quote] (Yes, I know it's cheesy to quote oneself, but please bear with me.) Since my last post, it occurred to me that it might be revealing to look at the statistics Draginol cited not as percentages of national populations, but in terms of absolute numbers. This led me to put together the following table:
[quote]You do know, there is this whole Internet thing where these stats are readily available.[/quote] Very droll. Doubtless you are equally aware that one can find 'evidence' in support of almost any argument one chooses, no matter how bonkers, if one trawls widely enough. That said, I accept that your supposition may well be right. However, given that the study you cite did not include a sample from the USA means that it remains just that - a sup
[quote]It would seem Americans are at least as well as informed as "other countries".[/quote] It would? How so? There are no stats relating to the USA in the table you posted. In the absence of any evidence to support your claim, it remains mere supposition.
[quote]We dont care, because they do not matter.[/quote] At last we get to the nub of your argument. But it's obvious that you don't even believe it yourself. After all, why would you bother to contribute to a thread about what the rest of the world thinks if you really didn't care what the rest of the world thinks? [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote]On the contrary, your conparison to American opinion has nothing to do with our ignoring european opinion.[/quote] America has a case for ignoring the opinions of others if and only if it is better informed. If it is not, then it is in no position to ridicule the rest of the world. I have still seen no evidence to support claims that America occupies any kind of high ground on this issue.
[quote who="Dr Guy" comment="17"]That is not really the issue, now is it? If your wife thinks you are a lousy lover, you have to do something about it. If Mr. Universe thinks you are, do you really care?[/quote] Your analogy doesn't stand up (sic), Dr. Guy. Trying to stay in role, the statistics quoted suggest that Mr. Universe thinks you are a lousy lover. All I'm saying is this: before you publish your sex manual, shouldn't you ask your wife what SHE thinks
I notice that there is no row in the table for the USA. Were Americans not asked the same question? Is there, in fact, any evidence to suggest that that a sample of American opinions would be any less worthy of a 'Good Lord' response? It might just be that, in addition to dismissing the opinions of the rest of the world, the USA needs to ignore what Americans think too ... [e digicons];P[/e]
[quote]I'm tired of the community.[/quote] I take many of your points, particularly this one. There used to be a plethora of contributors with something significant to say. Latterly, some appear to have lost their bite, others bite less often, and yet more have disappeared altogether. No doubt the vanilla-isation of the site has had something to do with this phenomenon. The result is that JU's resident non-trivial backbone has diminished noticeably, and is perhaps n
[quote]There's much more than meets the eye.[/quote] This is what you believe, no doubt. My point is merely that neither this belief - nor any of the increasing levels of detail that appear to be required in order to sustain it in terms of any and all underlying causes or meanings for what we see going on around us - are necessary in order to explain the world.
[quote]Tornados are an extension of that free will to Satan, who then causes bad things to happen to people.[/quote] [quote]Bad stuff happens for usually three reasons. 1. Because God is in the sanctifying business and he does put us thru testing but only what he knows we can endure. 2. Satan likes to persecute us. He pushes our buttons and tries to interfere in our lives to stop our witness. If we fall for his schemes how effective are we in our witness to the world?
[quote]I don't see it as a cop-out. I see it as we don't know, plain and simple.[/quote] Ah, now I see where we're going! In a nutshell: 1. Good stuff: Happens because God loves us. Because He is good. 2. Bad stuff that we can live with: Happens because God is 'testing' us. This is a good thing. Because He is Good. 3. Bad stuff that we can't live with: Happens because ... er, happ
[quote]I don't consider death to be a 'bad thing' to the person who died. Everyone is going to die someday, after all. The 'bad thing' happened to the people who lived.[/quote] What exactly are you saying here, Jythier? It reads to me as though you're arguing that there is no explanation needed when people die in aeroplane crashes, earthquakes, floods, war, famine etc., because death is not a 'bad thing'. Why would God allow so many people
[quote]The only reason Furry is curious about these examples (I believe) is because these "bad things" we very very terrible "bad things" that caused a lot of pain and suffering with no chance to learn from it.[/quote] I'm not quite sure what your belief about the reason for my 'curiosity' has to do with the issue at hand, CharlesCS. Anyway, let me reiterate the point I was trying to make. In the scenarios I describe, and countless others anyone could cite, individuals die&nb
[quote]How it's done is infinitely variable, but the outcome of everything is good to those who love God. So why do bad things happen? Because Satan wants you to wallow in it, and question God, instead of growing in your faith and drawing closer to the one who loves you.[/quote] But Jythier, this doesn't make sense when considered in respect of the examples I gave above. Yes, I know you also say: [quote]If you are dead, it wasn't a test.[/quote] But if it w
[quote]Third, we need a test. It may not earn us anything, but if we go through all the trials of life, we will come out stronger, and we will never be broken unless we give in.[/quote] Let's consider for just a moment a few examples of 'bad things' that could (and do) happen to people. (1) An aeroplane crashes, and all the occupants are killed. (2) Thousands of peasants die in a third world epidemic, or drown in a tsunami. (3) An entire community is wiped out when a dormant volcano un
[quote]You can get the offensive nature of the statement, I don't think you're that stupid. It was meant for no purpose other than to offend.[/quote] I made it, so I get it. It was made to illustrate a point. This has since been spelled out to you, obviously to no avail. I take it all back. You truly are an idiot.
[quote]By personal attacks, I mean the "Rot in Hell", "worm", "moron", "rectum-for-brain" variety.[/quote] Incidentally, it is disingenuous for you to illustrate your point by quoting yourself, erathoniel. The only person who has used the expression 'rectum-for-brain' here is YOU. I used the terms 'rectum' and 'brain'. I did so in a different context, which I fully explained the first time you bleated about it. Either you have wilfully misunderstood, or you truly are a
'When you attack somebody on JU, not only do you violate the Terms of Service (which you did read, didn't you?), you also detract from everyone's experience .' (My emphasis.) And who the hell are you, erathoniel, to tell people they're not allowed to enjoy the experience of occupying prime ringside seats at a good, old-fashioned slanging match? ;P Seriously, there is a fundamenta
'Which lots of people do every day for other stuff.' Poppycock. 'If you wish to continue this, you may do so at my site. Otherwise, I'll cite the TOS and tell you specifically which parts you are violating.' * Yawn * As I'm addressing the inconsistencies of your argument in respect of the subject matter of this thread,
'Apparently rectum-for-brain doesn't sound like an attack to you? It does to me.' I was making a point which you obviously missed, erathoniel. When you were taken to task for defining 'debate' incorrectly, you merely claimed a different and equally valid meaning of your own devising. If you take a word for which there is a concensus of understanding in respect of its meaning, and assign to it an alte
Stardock Forums