-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: maandag 1 november 2004 15:41
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Eminem mosh - Susskind
In a message dated 01/11/2004 12:38:54 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ30Aa01.html
"Look in his eyes, it's all lies"
-----------------------------------
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were
not true there would be nobody to ask the question is called the
anthropic principle." (Susskind)
Jud:
Why? Oh why IS IT that Heideggerians are ALWAYS selective when providing a
quotation?
You selectively provided the first relevant comment then excise the most
important run-on sentence which follows?
Of course I am well used to this chicanery having experienced the Thomasian
version with old Anthony of Aquino that great Neapolitan [sadly departed]I
will restore the FULL comment concerning the *anthropic principle* as it SHOULD
have been presented:
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were not true
there would be nobody to ask the question is called the anthropic principle.
Most physicists hate the anthropic principle. It is said to represent
surrender, a giving up of the noble quest for answers. But because of unprecedented
new developments in physics, astronomy and cosmology these same physicists are
being forced to reevaluate their prejudices about anthropic reasoning. There
are four principal developments driving this sea change. Two come from
theoretical physics, and two are experimental or observational.
Now to the person, who does not deserve respect.
What a pretention. You did what was the aim of the quote: read.
You still did not what other quotes aimed at: read. And think.
What an incredible pretention, baby Jud. Your filthy mouth would
be excused at least, when you would give alternatives. But you
and your ilk never do. Carnap and his 200 contradictions. And
what has he to give instead? A distinction. Look at your despicable
mail: only negation, forbidding.
rene
"do you still don't see?"
Jud. NO!!!!! ;-)
what's funny? i see only negative.
if you want to go on with mere idiocy, you can have it.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---