PIC thread killed
So anyway ... I just completed that last retort to jschell, and it was killed ... so here is my reply:
jschell,
I probably misunderstood some of what you said (I will beg off to some small degree because my left knee is in pain today).
And I was not attempting to answer your posts in any particular order either, and in one or two cases I was not addressing directly things to specifically wrote, but was just adding what I thought was relevant, or what I felt like 'saying'.
This whole thing about 'species' though ... this is not necessarily the same as the 'kinds' that are mentioned in Genesis; and we don't know precisely what the later meant either. But what this does mean is that there could be somethings going on under the current system of classification that would not occur between Biblical 'kinds'.
I was just reading this morning that some 'ancient' bird fossil that has long been considered some 'missing link' between reptiles and birds, has now been found out to be in fact two separate fossils - don't remember if fraud was involved or not, off hand.
Maybe if you framed the discussion in terms of classes, interfaces and Java the thread would last longer?
> Maybe if you framed the discussion in terms of> classes, interfaces and Java the thread would last> longer?Don't really think I'm all too slick, but why do you think I named the subject like I did ;)
Who was arguing which side?
> Who was arguing which side?You know - and I mean this in the nicest way, because he really is a consumate debater IMO - you just sometimes don't know when you argue with jschell ;o)Then there was that other debate going on about American politics
> Who was arguing which side?I think they are still arguing about what each side consists of before they can decide who is going to argue on each side.
> > Who was arguing which side?
>
> I think they are still arguing about what each side
> consists of before they can decide who is going to
> argue on each side.
Might seem that way a bit at times ... but you know, one has to establish ground rules ;oP
> > > Who was arguing which side?
> >
> > I think they are still arguing about what each
> side
> > consists of before they can decide who is going to
> > argue on each side.
>
> Might seem that way a bit at times ... but you know,
> one has to establish ground rules ;oP
I am just dissapointed that the people whom I had come to respect would find themselves bickering like children, and not be able to hold an adult conversation. I find it amazing that people are stating that they would never vote for a candidate based on their opinion on matter x, but had that candidate not said a world people would have had no problem voting for them. The candidates view would not be any different, it would simply be one more thing that the general public would not know. Voting for the most part is a horrible process, unfortunately I don't help it any, I am eligible to vote yet I have not done much research on the candidates to any extent at all. Somewhat scary how influential spin people are in how the world works.
PIC? You were discussing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters?
public abstract class VenousCatheter
{
int lumens = 0;
public abstract void length();
}
Message was edited by:
filestream
> > Who was arguing which side?
>
> You know - and I mean this in the nicest way, because
> he really is a consumate debater IMO - you just
> sometimes don't know when you argue with jschell ;o)
>
Frankly in terms of evolution I think Christians and "scientitists" are all idiots.
But mostly "scientitists". I woud think that someone who is supposed to be educated in a role that requires rigorous research would both have an understanding of what science means and also be able to learn a sufficient amount about the opposing viewpoint to be able to address it in a rational way in a political debate.
And yet they never do.
> I find it amazing that people are
> stating that they would never vote for a candidate
> based on their opinion on matter x, but had that
> candidate not said a world people would have had no
> problem voting for them. The candidates view would
> not be any different, it would simply be one more
> thing that the general public would not know.
And if they don't make statements like that then what would one use as criteria for differentiating between different candidates?
How their hair looks?
> > I find it amazing that people are
> > stating that they would never vote for a candidate
> > based on their opinion on matter x, but had that
> > candidate not said a world people would have had
> no
> > problem voting for them. The candidates view
> would
> > not be any different, it would simply be one more
> > thing that the general public would not know.
>
> And if they don't make statements like that then what
> would one use as criteria for differentiating between
> different candidates?
What I am trying to say is that this is going to promote that the candidate only speak about the things that they know they agree with the majority on - hence we always hear about tax cuts but rarely hear about spending on thing that while necessary don't give the people direct and immediate benefit. Also I agree that we need something to distinguish them just because candidate 1 is vocal about issue x does not mean that candidate 2 does not agree with candidate 1.
>
> How their hair looks?
Sadly that can be the case, which one is the most visually appealing.
>PIC? You were discussing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters?
filesteam I don't want you anywhere near my peripherals ;-P
" ... going to promote ... " Going?! GOing?! GOING?!!! ... done a long time ago already.Message was edited by: abillconslMessage was edited by: abillconsl
"PIC? You were discussing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters?"
private final class InnerCirclePIC {
private static final String USAGE = "Shhhhhhhh!";
private InnerCirclePIC() {
System.out.println(USAGE);
}
}
> > > > Who was arguing which side?
> > >
> > > I think they are still arguing about what each
> > side
> > > consists of before they can decide who is going
> to
> > > argue on each side.
> >
> > Might seem that way a bit at times ... but you
> know,
> > one has to establish ground rules ;oP
>
> am just dissapointed that the people whom I had come
> to respect would find themselves bickering like
> children, and not be able to hold an adult
> conversation. I find it amazing that people are
> stating that they would never vote for a candidate
> based on their opinion on matter x, but had that
> candidate not said a world people would have had no
> problem voting for them. The candidates view would
> not be any different, it would simply be one more
> thing that the general public would not know.
> Voting for the most part is a horrible process,
> unfortunately I don't help it any, I am eligible to
> vote yet I have not done much research on the
> candidates to any extent at all. Somewhat scary how
> influential spin people are in how the world works.
Personally, I don't think that the discussion was particularly childish. Sometimes folks do get carried away a bit, but you don't know why ... maybe they're just having a trying day - who knows? Most times the 'debates' are kept on the level ... if not a bit off on tangents at times ... keeps one on one's toes.
> Personally, I don't think that the discussion was
> particularly childish. Sometimes folks do get carried
> away a bit, but you don't know why ... maybe they're
> just having a trying day - who knows? Most times the
> 'debates' are kept on the level ... if not a bit off
> on tangents at times ... keeps one on one's toes.
Quite true, perhaps I should have thought about my post a bit more before shooting off the fingertips ;-). Shame that the debate was cut short, was rather interesting to read the various viewpoints.
> > Personally, I don't think that the discussion was
> > particularly childish. Sometimes folks do get
> carried
> > away a bit, but you don't know why ... maybe
> they're
> > just having a trying day - who knows? Most times
> the
> > 'debates' are kept on the level ... if not a bit
> off
> > on tangents at times ... keeps one on one's toes.
>
> Quite true, perhaps I should have thought about my
> post a bit more before shooting off the fingertips
> ;-). Shame that the debate was cut short, was rather
> interesting to read the various viewpoints.
No pblm on my end - and I rather agree with your later point. Good wknd!
IT"s a new take on the old "x=x++" thread!!!! http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5171760&tstart=0And I thought my week was not complete...
> IT"s a new take on the old "x=x++" thread!!!!> > http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5171760> &tstart=0> > And I thought my week was not complete...You lost me ... (I)mformation (T)echnology's a new take on ...
I meant: "It is a ..."I love when that question pops up... it warms my heart.I stand by the idea that there is some professor out their assigning the question who needs to be shot.Anyway, the guy backed off and admitted that he was mistaken--that's pretty cool.
I knew you meant 'it is a ... ', I was just reacting because I had - and still do have - no idea why you posted that here - not that I think you shouldn't have ;o) ... I just don't get it, is all.
Oooooooooooooooh Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii get iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit ... what you really meant was: "Look here at this link for a new take on ... " I am really sorry I was sooooooooooo slooooooooooow. It just struck me that you wanted me/us to mentally link your post to what was discussed above.
I think I posted it here because the PIC thread is the closest to a WC thread I could find in force at the time, and the last WC thread got to discussing certain questions that come up all the time and contribute to veteran poster burnout.
> Oooooooooooooooh Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii get
> iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit ... what you really meant was:
> "Look here at this link for a new take on ... " I am
> really sorry I was sooooooooooo slooooooooooow. It
> just struck me that you wanted me/us to mentally link
> your post to what was discussed above.
If all your posts have this many doubled up letters it's no wonder you're slow ;-P
run away ;-P
> > Oooooooooooooooh Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii get
> > iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit ... what you really meant was:
> > "Look here at this link for a new take on ... " I
> am
> > really sorry I was sooooooooooo slooooooooooow. It
> > just struck me that you wanted me/us to mentally
> link
> > your post to what was discussed above.
>
> If all your posts have this many doubled up letters
> it's no wonder you're slow ;-P
>
> run away ;-P
Go ahead - hit a man when he's already down ;oP
