Bull Trout
 

"Chip Bartholomay" wrote in message
...
RW wrote:

Odd that nowhere in these exerpted passages does he actually
state that he
did
not believe in any god or gods. He was at most an agnostic,
leaning more
towards deisim than atheism.

Unbelievable.

Maybe the quotation was a little too long for you to follow. Here's
an
excerpt:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have
never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I
can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;
for
if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men
who do
not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost
all
my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a
damnable
doctrine...."

He couldn't have been more clear.

Yep. He was writing about Christianity. That is quite clear. Of
course,
Christianity is not the only religion, nor does an apparent
rejection of
Christianity automatically mean that he was an athiest. As I said,
he was
probably at best an agnostic leaning towards deism.

Stevie doesn't read very well. Don't be surprised if he still doesn't
get it.

But what does it matter? How do his personal beliefs alter in any
way his
theories, theories that have been modified over the intervening
years by
incorporation of new data, but that still stand as the best and
most plausible
explanations for the mechanisms of evolution?

Correct, none of it matters within the context of his work. This
little subtext is a debate begun when I responded to Chas Wade's post
in which he pointed to Galileo and Darwin as examples of the putative
discord between science and religious orthodoxy. I pointed out that
both actually had a lot of clerical support even in their own times,
and that most religious organizations today don't have much of a
problem with evolutionary theory. Stevie, who doesn't read very well,
and argues even more poorly, responded characteristically by doing a
tarantella, in several parts, on his dick. You'll get used to it
after a while. :)

Wolfgang

Bull Trout
 

William Claspy wrote:

RW, perhaps you should read up on agnosticism and atheism. Disillusion with
or disklike of Christian myths does not make one an atheist.

As regards Darwin, Adrian Desmond (author of books on Darwin and Huxley)
says the following in his article on Darwin in the Britannica, illustrating
the limits of Darwin's autobiography, his religion (or lack) at the end of
his life, and the reason for his burial at Westminster:

In Darwin's milieu, rejecting Christianity was tantamount to atheism. If
he wasn't a Christian, what was he? A Buddhist? A Hindu? A Moslem? Given
his comments about the peculiarities of all major religions, it's clear
that he held them in no higher esteem than he held Christianity.

For a scientific rationalist, as Darwin certainly was, there is little
or no difference between atheism and agnosticism. After all, it's not
logically possible to disprove the existence of God. A scientific
philosophy has to allow doubt. My Webster's, under "agnostic," has the
entry *syn* see atheist. Under "atheistic" it says, "*syn* ATHEIST,
AGNOSTIC, DEIST, FREETHINKER, INFIDEL, shared meaning element: one who
does not take an orthodox religious position." It lists the antonym as
"theist."

We can play the dictionary game if you want, but I'll win that one.

The proper scientific attitude to the existence of God was best put by
Laplace, to Napolean:

Napoleon:
You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once
mentioning the author of the universe.

Laplace:
Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

Later, when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange made a very
apt comment:
Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.

"Darwin wrote his autobiography between 1876 and 1881. It was composed for
his grandchildren, rather than for publication, and it was particularly
candid on his dislike of Christian myths of eternal torment. To people who
inquired about his religious beliefs, however, he would only say that he was
an agnostic (a word coined by Huxley in 1869). "

Two things: First, Darwin was reluctant to distress his wife, who was
rather pious. Second, it was in Darwin's nature to avoid unecessary
controversy. He wasn't the sort of person to get into ****ing matches
with theists.

And, of course, none of this has much to do with species differentiation or
Bull trout, but it did make for a few minutes of interesting research. :-)

That's for sure. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bull Trout
 

rw wrote

it was in Darwin's nature to avoid unecessary
controversy. He wasn't the sort of person to get into ****ing matches
with theists.


let me see if i can name someone is *just* that sort of person...

wayno (of course, "theists" is just the beginning...)

Bull Trout
 

Wayne Harrison wrote:
rw wrote

it was in Darwin's nature to avoid unecessary

controversy. He wasn't the sort of person to get into ****ing matches
with theists.



let me see if i can name someone is *just* that sort of person...

I do like philosophical arguments, but I don't like ****ing matches. So
far, I think Chip Bartholomay and William Claspy and I have been having
a civil disagreement about Bull Trout. :-) Wolfgang's doing his usual
thing.

And I would never compare myself to Darwin, who, by all contemporary
accounts, had the sweetest of natures.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bull Trout
 

Chip Bartholomay wrote:
rickeyrickett wrote;


The fact that life has changed over time


Marriage is the absolute proof of the above.

HTH,

Russell

Freedom ( Was Bull trout)
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

SNIP
Nothing is happening that hasn't happened many times before and it
will continue to happen, off and on, for as long as unmoderated usenet
groups survive which, to be sure, may not be all that long. You see,
the REAL problem, as I've mentioned here before, is that unmoderated
usenet groups are the closest thing to a democratic institution that
the world has ever seen......and a LOT of people simply don't like
democracy very much. What's happening here that isn't good is what
always happens to free speech.


Interesting points. Nevertheless, free speech as such is a myth here. It
seems that quite a few providers have a relatively high complaint
tolerance,
and also that less people complain to ISP´s anyway.
I agree that this group, ( one of the few I have any real experience of,
apart from ROFFT), and others like it, may indeed be the last bastions of
freedom as such, but only because ISP´s are not primarily interested in
controlling content, but in making money, and it is not possible for
various
other bodies ( Governments, associations etc)to exercise any real control.

"Free speech", can of course be hard to define. My own favourite ( rightly
or wrongly), is "The freedom to express an opinion, without fear or
favour".
It does not include the "freedom" to attack others personally with
impunity.
As an interesting aside, there are many providers, ( as I know to my
cost),
who
will simply suspend service, or attempt to force their subscribers to
conform
to their policies. Irrespective of right or wrong. There is no recourse.

What often happens here, is that somebody ( for whatever reason) launches
a
personal attack, the person attacked replies in kind, and this often
escalates to a "tit for tat" situation. The final outcome ( again, rightly
or wrongly) may well depend merely on the complaint tolerance of the ISP
concerned, or the personal integrity of any of the parties concerned.
Which
again, differs very considerably from person to person.

Furthermore, for more than a few people, personal integrity and
willingness
to accept responsibility for their actions, only lasts as long as it is
convenient for them. They expect others to adhere to their codes, but for
some odd reason, they imagine that they themselves are exempt. Biases
develop, and these severely affect the statements made by some, more or
less
dependent on what they think of the poster concerned.

These groups have nothing whatever to do with democracy. Democracy is a
political system based on the premise that the numerical majority of an
organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. This
specifically does not apply to this, or practically any other group on
Usenet, moderated or otherwise. I am always amazed at people who
mistake such groups for democracy.

These groups are composed of individuals who may do as they please within
the confines set, and enforced, by their providers. Some can get away with
practically anything, others may lose their providers in a very short
time.

Freedom is something entirely different.

Allow me to clarify.

Others may have declared that ROFF is a democracy. I have never done so. I
am well aware of what a democracy is and, for what it's worth, essentially
agree with the outline you provided above. However, ROFF most certainly IS
a democratic institution or, to be more precise (and as I've said before),
as close to it as the world has ever seen. The adjective "democratic" has
more than one meaning and the one I use here is neither trivial nor obscure.
Something is said to be democratic if it refers to the political system
called democracy and/OR if it is characterized essentially by social
equality. In the latter sense, it is roughly synonymous with "egalitarian".
I chose "democratic" over "egalitarian" deliberately and for reasons that I
won't bore anyone with unless asked. In either case, what makes an
unmoderated Usenet news group democratic or egalitarian is that anyone who
can get here has, in exactly equal measure....a very important part of the
equation...., the right AND the means to express him or her self (or not, as
they see fit) and avail him or her self of the offerings put forward by
others (with the same qualification).

Your point about an Internet Service Provider being able to terminate access
to Usenet is taken (and it is certainly true), but it is completely
irrelevant to the nature of the institution under discussion. Your ISP
exists and acts outside the confines of Usenet. Anyone who doesn't like you
or what you have to say, or has any other reason legitimate or otherwise,
can hire an assassin to slit your throat and thus summarily halt your
participation in anything and everything. This fact, in and of itself, has
nothing to do with the nature any organization you might have interacted
with. It sucks, but it's another issue entirely. To argue otherwise is
simply to confuse what happens within a certain context with external
conditions or factors that prevent that context from applying.

As for integrity and responsibility, these are highly subjective matters.
You and I have both been criticized a good deal more than the average
ROFFian with regard to both, and the casual unbiased observer would, prima
facie, have no reason to suppose that such criticism was necessarily
undeserved.

One last thing. No one does ANYTHING here with impunity as long as I'm
around.

Wolfgang
who hears the sound of dozens of little feet scurrying toward the
dictionaries. :)

Freedom ( Was Bull trout)
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in news:c0edb2$16id41$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:
One last thing. No one does ANYTHING here with impunity as long as I'm
around.

Wolfgang
who hears the sound of dozens of little feet scurrying toward the
dictionaries. :)


Yeah ... just what do you mean by ANYTHING?

;-)

Steve

Bull Trout
 

"rw" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne Harrison wrote:
rw wrote

it was in Darwin's nature to avoid unecessary

controversy. He wasn't the sort of person to get into ****ing matches
with theists.



let me see if i can name someone is *just* that sort of person...

I do like philosophical arguments, but I don't like ****ing matches. So
far, I think Chip Bartholomay and William Claspy and I have been having
a civil disagreement about Bull Trout. :-) Wolfgang's doing his usual
thing.

O.k., that's funny. :)

And I would never compare myself to Darwin, who, by all contemporary
accounts, had the sweetest of natures.

Don't look now , Sparky, but you just compared yourself to Darwin. You
really ARE stupid, aren't you? :)

Wolfgang

Freedom ( Was Bull trout)
 

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Allow me to clarify.

Others may have declared that ROFF is a democracy. I have never done so.
I
am well aware of what a democracy is and, for what it's worth, essentially
agree with the outline you provided above.
SNIP

I concede that up to a point, and I actually assumed you were using
"democratic" in its "social equality" "free"or "egalitarian" sense. However,
many do not. Quite a few also regularly confuse democracy with freedom. The
terms are not synonymous.

Also, the fact remains that the egalitarian aspect of "this" "democracy",
does not negate the basic premise that a majority decision is binding. It
is doubtful whether it woukd even be possible under "normal" circumtances
to even reach such a decision on any given subject, much less enforce it on
"minority" dissenters.

Your point about an Internet Service Provider being able to terminate
access
to Usenet is taken (and it is certainly true), but it is completely
irrelevant to the nature of the institution under discussion. Your ISP
exists and acts outside the confines of Usenet. Anyone who doesn't like
you
or what you have to say, or has any other reason legitimate or otherwise,
can hire an assassin to slit your throat and thus summarily halt your
participation in anything and everything. This fact, in and of itself,
has
nothing to do with the nature any organization you might have interacted
with. It sucks, but it's another issue entirely. To argue otherwise is
simply to confuse what happens within a certain context with external
conditions or factors that prevent that context from applying.


I see your point, but an ISP is essential to gain access, and therefore a
fundamental part of the "equation" of this group. Also, this group has no
binding rules, constitution, or even generally accepted guidelines. Only
ISP´s have the ability to enforce such, and the ISP´s vary considerably.
Although of course the Usenet heirarchy may also make some general
decisions. Which indeed are of a democratic nature, within the confines of
that organisation. These things have direct bearing on the ability to post,
and are therefore germane.

An assassin, or the local TV shop, ( where you can freely buy a TV in order
to watch the news for instance),can not be compared to an ISP.


As for integrity and responsibility, these are highly subjective matters.
You and I have both been criticized a good deal more than the average
ROFFian with regard to both, and the casual unbiased observer would, prima
facie, have no reason to suppose that such criticism was necessarily
undeserved.


Agreed. Something I consider extremely unfortunate, ( or indeed extremely
fortunate?) but indubitably true.

Rather strange as well, for quite a while now I have not considered myself
to be a ROFFian. Although of course anybody who posts here is de-facto such.

Indeed, I only post rarely, on subjects which interest me, and I now
generally avoid fishing posts as well, as they apparently merely generate
gratuitous aggression among the great unwashed.

One last thing. No one does ANYTHING here with impunity as long as I'm
around.

Wolfgang
who hears the sound of dozens of little feet scurrying toward the
dictionaries. :)


Indeed, we must be grateful that semantics is such an exact science! :)

TL
MC

Bull Trout
 

"David Snedeker" wrote:

What about the "Dollies" on the Graywolf, a trib of the Dungeness? Are
they
actually Bull Trout?


Sam says that the Graywolf has bulls, but the Dungeness has Dollies.
I'll open a new thread later with the details of last night's meeting.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html