Home > Archive > Cobol > August 2006 > Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal
|
|
| HeyBub 2006-08-22, 6:55 pm |
| The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a rabbit
is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a chocolate
rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as a matter of
fact.)
Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
form a dance team.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
| |
| Alistair 2006-08-22, 6:55 pm |
|
HeyBub wrote:
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a rabbit
> is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a chocolate
> rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as a matter of
> fact.)
>
Real spheres do not carry RABBIT FLU. In the UK we have had a farmer
killed by rabbit flu contracted by picking up a rabbit on his farm.
> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.
I doubt it. He is unemployed and lives in a Moscow flat with his
mother.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
BTW, no-one has yet been able to confirm Perelman's proof but there are
no significant flaws. He has previously refused a Maths prize awarded
by the EU. He may also refuse the million bucks on offer from a
Canadian institute as a bonus prize.
Oh, and he is really polite. (Not that I know him, I picked it all up
off of news.bbc.co.uk).
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-22, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12emh9iiahr99d8@news.supernews.com...
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a
> rabbit is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a
> chocolate rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as
> a matter of fact.)
>
> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
>
>
Dr. Grisha Perelman lives in a world most of us cannot imagine. He did not
reject the Fields Medal out of arrogance; neither is he a "Whacko" (or
"wacko"). He solved a problem and posted the solution on the internet four
years ago. His intention was to make it publicly available, not to s
fame, wealth, or kudos. (Had he wanted the latter he would have gone through
the usual submission process to an established University.) He simply
doesn't see the relevance of a million dollars or fame for doing something
he would be doing anyway, and, in his universe, anything other than the
exploration of multi-dimensional topologies is of little importance.
Have a look at this... it is NOT a Press release where they s to
sensationalise behaviour they make no attempt to respect or understand:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/poincare-conjecture.html
My own assessment is that he possibly will share some of the cash
eventually, probably because it will improve the life of his mother.
If this man is "wacko" mad, then it is a fine madness and the world could
use some more of it...
Pete.
| |
| Richard 2006-08-22, 6:55 pm |
|
HeyBub wrote:
> "topologically, a rabbit is the same as a sphere."
Something that can be easily proved with a rabbit and your local
garage's tire pump set to 100psi.
> Not a REAL rabbit,
Oops, mea culpa I should have read the whole message before rushing off
to do the experiment.
| |
| Albino Timberwolf 2006-08-23, 3:55 am |
| I'm allergic to chocolate. Could this same proof work on a marshmallow
rabbit? Perhaps a rabbit from a box of animal crackers. Then I would not
have to wait until Easter.
Alternatively, super glue and duct tape exist. A rabbit does not have to
have holes.
Further, must it be a rabbit? The "famed" object of an old magicians hat
trick? Why not another animal? Does it state in this proof that is must be a
mammal? I'd love to take some duct tape and super glue to that damned Geico
lizard. I'd save even more on my car insurance if those monsters (expletive
replaced) wouldn't waste so much money on advertising!
Finally, I think I could talk my boss into volunteering for such an
experiment if he were promised that he could eat the chocolate after the
conclusion of the test. You'll need about 325 pound of rude,  chocolate
to balance the equation. Give it some though. Get back to me.
Wolf!
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12emh9iiahr99d8@news.supernews.com...
> The Nobel Prize of Mathematics, awarded every four years was refused by a
> Russian recluse who proved the Poincare conjecture, "topologically, a
> rabbit is the same as a sphere." Not a REAL rabbit, mind you, more like a
> chocolate rabbit; one with no holes. (Real rabbits have holes, several, as
> a matter of fact.)
>
> Grigory Perelman, the winner, will evidently join up with Bobby Fisher to
> form a dance team.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=2341460
>
>
>
| |
| HeyBub 2006-08-23, 7:56 am |
| Albino Timberwolf wrote:
> I'm allergic to chocolate. Could this same proof work on a marshmallow
> rabbit? Perhaps a rabbit from a box of animal crackers. Then I would
> not have to wait until Easter.
>
> Alternatively, super glue and duct tape exist. A rabbit does not have
> to have holes.
>
> Further, must it be a rabbit? The "famed" object of an old magicians
> hat trick? Why not another animal? Does it state in this proof that
> is must be a mammal? I'd love to take some duct tape and super glue
> to that damned Geico lizard. I'd save even more on my car insurance
> if those monsters (expletive replaced) wouldn't waste so much money
> on advertising!
Yes, a rabbit is required. The "Schrodinger's cat" hypothesis just wouldn't
work if it were promoted as "Schrodinger's Star-nosed Mole" (
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/fe...0_feature2.html ).
| |
| HeyBub 2006-08-23, 7:56 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Dr. Grisha Perelman lives in a world most of us cannot imagine. He
> did not reject the Fields Medal out of arrogance; neither is he a
> "Whacko" (or "wacko"). He solved a problem and posted the solution on
> the internet four years ago. His intention was to make it publicly
> available, not to s fame, wealth, or kudos. (Had he wanted the
> latter he would have gone through the usual submission process to an
> established University.) He simply doesn't see the relevance of a
> million dollars or fame for doing something he would be doing anyway,
> and, in his universe, anything other than the exploration of
> multi-dimensional topologies is of little importance.
Exactly. Certifiable, head-to-the-lab whacko.
[...]
> If this man is "wacko" mad, then it is a fine madness and the world
> could use some more of it...
And deprive so many of the joy of giving?
Seriously, though, the absense of greed is symptomatic of significant
pathological disease or defect. No, if he liked doing what he was doing
anyway, his thought processes are seriously flawed if he did not realize he
could do more of it, or do it better, with $1 million in his pocket.
| |
| Alistair 2006-08-23, 6:55 pm |
|
Richard wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>
> Something that can be easily proved with a rabbit and your local
> garage's tire pump set to 100psi.
Presumably, if stuck in the oral or nasal orifices/interstices then the
gas would leak out of the other interstice.
If stuck in the anal interstice then I would presume that the gas would
leak out of both nasal and oral interstices. A rabbit and a sphere are
not topologically equivalent but a rabbit and a cardboard tube are
topologically equivalent.
>
>
> Oops, mea culpa I should have read the whole message before rushing off
> to do the experiment.
| |
| Richard 2006-08-23, 6:55 pm |
|
Alistair wrote:
> Presumably, if stuck in the oral or nasal orifices/interstices then the
> gas would leak out of the other interstice.
And at a 100psi it acts like a blunderbuss with bird shot.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-23, 9:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12eom1tan2be0be@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Exactly. Certifiable, head-to-the-lab whacko.
>
:-) Sure, Jerry... He didn't have the advantage of being born and raised
into a capitalist consumer society, so it is no wonder his thouht processes
are a little off the beam... :-)
> [...]
>
>
> And deprive so many of the joy of giving?
>
> Seriously, though, the absense of greed is symptomatic of significant
> pathological disease or defect.
Really? If we're being serious (and I doubt we are :-)), and having spent a
goodly portion of my life acquainting myself with tomes on psychology and
human behaviour, having observed said behaviours at first hand in various
cultures and countries over many years, and not being averse to thinking, or
incapable of drawing conclusions from observations made, I have not found
the statement above to be true.
Perhaps you could help me remedy this possible omission in my education by
giving a cite for it? :-)
While greed, like most traits, CAN have beneficial effects, the absence of
it does not imply any kind of defect. In fact, for some of us, being driven
by greed is simply stressful and counter productive. Despite what Michael
Douglas said in "Wall Street", greed is, overall, NOT good.
You are suggesting treating cancer with herpes simplex 2. The virus may
attack certain kinds of cancer, but, given the choice, most people would
probably prefer not to have it...
Greed, on balance, is best avoided.
>No, if he liked doing what he was doing anyway, his thought processes are
>seriously flawed if he did not realize he could do more of it, or do it
>better, with $1 million in his pocket.
How exactly does the amount of money I have, improve my programming ability?
Or improve my ability to think generally? OK, if I was starving or didn't
have the basic nutritional requirements, my health could deteriorate to the
point where my thought processes might suffer, but given that the needs for
health are met, what improvement in my mental or spiritual (if you believe
in such things) growth, does having more money afford?
In my life I've been rich and I've been poor. (I mean 'poor'... no food, no
shelter, no work, no assets, didn't speak the language, and only the
clothes I stood up in. While I value that experience, I wouldn't want to do
it again, and I could easily have lived without it....) Rich may be better
from a material comfort standpoint, it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever
on who I am or what or how I think. These days I expect to be fed, clothed
and sheltered, I expect to enjoy myself and have time for the things that
interest me; not quite to the same degree as Grisha Perelman, but I can
certainly relate to his mindset. (And I expect to provide these things for
myself, and not as a handout from Government or friends...)
Dr. Perelman has an environment that affords him the necessities (for him)
and it is enough for him. His absence of greed is not a defect; it is
something he simply has no place for.
Pete.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-08-23, 9:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Really? If we're being serious (and I doubt we are :-)), and having
> spent a goodly portion of my life acquainting myself with tomes on
> psychology and human behaviour, having observed said behaviours at
> first hand in various cultures and countries over many years, and not
> being averse to thinking, or incapable of drawing conclusions from
> observations made, I have not found the statement above to be true.
>
> Perhaps you could help me remedy this possible omission in my
> education by giving a cite for it? :-)
Sure. Be glad to do so. Or at least attempt to do so.
--- begin quote
And, behold, it was very good ... And, behold, it was good [in the Book of
Genesis] alludes to the creation of man and the Good Inclination, and "very"
alludes to the Evil Inclination. Is, then, the Evil Inclination "very good"?
It is, in truth, to teach you that were it not for the Evil Inclination, no
one would build a house, marry and beget children.
--- end quote
This is from the Midrash (Kohelet Rabba) exposition on the Talmud. The "evil
inclination" means "greed." The presence of greed is, as God said, "very
good." But the fiat of God is not a compelling argument. I understand.
>
> While greed, like most traits, CAN have beneficial effects, the
> absence of it does not imply any kind of defect. In fact, for some of
> us, being driven by greed is simply stressful and counter productive.
> Despite what Michael Douglas said in "Wall Street", greed is,
> overall, NOT good.
> You are suggesting treating cancer with herpes simplex 2. The virus
> may attack certain kinds of cancer, but, given the choice, most
> people would probably prefer not to have it...
>
> Greed, on balance, is best avoided.
I never said anything about cancer; let's not get off on a straw-man
argument.
Greed exists, or should exist, in everyone, much like red blood cells. I
suggested the absence of greed is abnormal, and potentially fatal and, inter
alia, the suppression of a normal emotion is dangerous.
You'll agree, I hope, that it is possible to do great harm with those
motivations generally characterized as beneficial: love, altruism, charity,
pity, and so on. Likewise, it is possible to perform acts of great worth
motivated by those emotions generally despised: greed, hate, jealousy,
distrust, lust, etc.
Consider Jonas Salk, pouring over his microscope. He was, no doubt,
motivated by very many laudatory and altruistic urges. But I'll bet,
somewhere in his psyche, he thought "I HATE the notion of crippled children.
I'm in a race with that Sabin fellow. If I can solve this, I'll get big
grants and can do the kind of research I want without having to suck up the
frikkin bureaucrats." So, then, due (maybe only in small ways) to hate,
envy, greed, and other "evil inclinations," polio has been virtually
eradicated in your lifetime and mine. A universally-accepted good result
attributable to what many consider "evil."
Point is, God created us with greed, envy, lust, hate, and an panalopy of
other "nasty" emotions and God didn't make junk. These emotions are normal
and natural. It's what we DO with these inclinations that counts, not their
mere existence. The difference between greed and love is similar to the
difference between a bucket of paint and a stick of dynamite. It is easier
to do good or harm with one or the other, but good or harm is not ruled out
for either (if you force someone to drink the paint, they die).
At least that's what my tradition teaches, it makes sense to me, and I'm
sticking to it.
>
>
> How exactly does the amount of money I have, improve my programming
> ability? Or improve my ability to think generally?
Heh! Maimonides was once asked: "You say that the Great One, blessed be His
Name, created man so that man may form profound intellectual concepts with
his mind. Yet we see that the scholar is only one among many, perhaps only
one in a generation. Why is it, then, did the Great One, blessed be His
Name, create so many that do not have the capacity to form great
intellectual concepts with their minds?"
Maimonides gave a long answer, but to avoid boring you, I'll condense it.
There are two reasons, said the Rambam, for having a world with many, many
non-scholars:
1) The scholar, if he had it to do by himself, would be overwhelmed by just
his daily bread. He'd have to learn to sow, cultivate, plant, reap, thresh,
grind, and bake the wheat, plus make the tools necessary for these
activities. All this would take an inordinate amount of time, time the
scholar would NOT have available for study. Many non-scholars were created,
concluded Maimonides, so the person capable of great intellectual thoughts,
the scholar, could eat.
2) Inasmuch as man does not live by bread alone, others not capable of great
intellectual thoughts were created so the scholar would not be lonely.
In these two endeavors, money helps.
> Dr. Perelman has an environment that affords him the necessities (for
> him) and it is enough for him. His absence of greed is not a defect;
> it is something he simply has no place for.
Absence of greed may not, in Dr Perelman's case, be a defect, but it
certainly is not a blessing. I trust you'd agree, for example, that the
practice of charity is meritorious? Basic rule: one can't practice charity
if one has no resources. To the degree one has ample funds, beyond basic
needs, one can improve the lot of the less fortunate. In this regard, greed
helps and helps tremendously. There is a French word for one who has the
ability to help his fellow man and refuses... but I don't know what it is.
| |
| Roger While 2006-08-24, 3:55 am |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1156379274.199910.326540@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
> And at a 100psi it acts like a blunderbuss with bird shot.
He-he. Reminds me of a recipe :
BAKED STUFFED CHICKEN
6-7 lb. chicken
1 cup melted butter
1 cup stuffing
1 cup uncooked popcorn
salt/pepper to taste
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Brush chicken well with melted butter, salt and pepper.
Fill cavity with stuffing and popcorn.
Place in baking pan with the neckend toward the back of the oven.
Listen for popping sounds.
When the chicken's ass blows the oven door open and the chicken
flies across the room, it is done.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-24, 7:55 am |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12eq6os8op36q19@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Sure. Be glad to do so. Or at least attempt to do so.
>
I appreciate the attempt ... :-)
> --- begin quote
> And, behold, it was very good ... And, behold, it was good [in the Book of
> Genesis] alludes to the creation of man and the Good Inclination, and
> "very" alludes to the Evil Inclination. Is, then, the Evil Inclination
> "very good"? It is, in truth, to teach you that were it not for the Evil
> Inclination, no one would build a house, marry and beget children.
> --- end quote
>
> This is from the Midrash (Kohelet Rabba) exposition on the Talmud. The
> "evil inclination" means "greed."
And by what authority does the phrase "Evil Inclination" become "Greed"...?
It could just as easily be lust, anger, or any other "evil inclination"....
For a divine being you'd think God could spell it out a bit more clearly...
but then, maybe He did; maybe all He meant by "Evil Inclination" was the
inclination to do bad things, the Dark Side of the Force...exactly what He
said. I think if God had MEANT "greed", He would have SAID "greed".
The presence of greed is, as God said, "very
> good." But the fiat of God is not a compelling argument. I understand.
>
It is about as compelling an argument (for me) as: "I'll huff and I'll puff
and I'll BLOW your house down!"
My experience has been that pigs don't build houses (from straw, sticks, or
bricks), wolves don't blow them down and get boiled alive for their trouble,
and, although fairy stories often have worthwhile morals and are definitely
entertaining in the telling, it is probably not good practice to model human
behaviour on them...
(I accept that that others will feel strongly about this and I respect their
right to do so; my comments are purely from a personal point of view and I
am not trying to offend. (Sometimes, I do it without trying, and for this I
unreservedly apologise))
>
> I never said anything about cancer; let's not get off on a straw-man
> argument.
>
I'm not trying to change the subject; I am simply using an analogy that
because something intrinsically bad may have some worthwhile attributes,
that doesn't make it desirable. It's the same argument as saying that the
end justifies the means. In my book it doesn't, but I see from your post
below, that you may have a differing view on this.
> Greed exists, or should exist, in everyone, much like red blood cells. I
> suggested the absence of greed is abnormal, and potentially fatal and,
> inter alia, the suppression of a normal emotion is dangerous.
>
If it is not in one's nature to feel a certain emotion, then it is not being
suppressed, and there is therefore no danger whatsoever. Your argument
predicates on all men being greedy.(Only then would it's absence be
abnormal). This is demonstrably not true. In the same way as any other
emotion...some people ever know fear, others never know love, or hatred, or
jealousy... it is an individual thing and certainly not abnormal for a given
individual. Whether it is DESIRABLE or not is arguable and I believe that is
what we're arguing.I don't think it is necessary (or desirable) for people
to be greedy and, in Dr. Perelman's case, his entire upbringing has
predisposed him not to need more than is required for health and life. The
question was whether it is fair to label such behaviour "wacko" or crazy,
and this is the nub of my objection.
I believe it is out of order for the press (and certain residents of
Texas... :-)) to so label a man when they have no idea or insight into his
life or work. I'm not suggesting he is a Saint :-); rather, I'm saying he
doesn't deserve to be called "crazy" simply because he doesn't embrace
certain fashionable value sets.
> You'll agree, I hope, that it is possible to do great harm with those
> motivations generally characterized as beneficial: love, altruism,
> charity, pity, and so on.
Yes. Any powerful emotion when misused can be harmful.
> Likewise, it is possible to perform acts of great worth motivated by those
> emotions generally despised: greed, hate, jealousy, distrust, lust, etc.
Maybe. Here you are on shakier ground... :-)
>
> Consider Jonas Salk, pouring over his microscope. He was, no doubt,
> motivated by very many laudatory and altruistic urges. But I'll bet,
> somewhere in his psyche, he thought "I HATE the notion of crippled
> children. I'm in a race with that Sabin fellow. If I can solve this, I'll
> get big grants and can do the kind of research I want without having to
> suck up the frikkin bureaucrats." So, then, due (maybe only in small ways)
> to hate, envy, greed, and other "evil inclinations," polio has been
> virtually eradicated in your lifetime and mine. A universally-accepted
> good result attributable to what many consider "evil."
As neither of us can have any inkling into Dr. Salk's motivations or
temperament, the above is pure speculation. As such, it is simply irrelevant
to the argument.
>
> Point is, God created us with greed, envy, lust, hate, and an panalopy of
> other "nasty" emotions and God didn't make junk.
Oh no? Do you really want to pursue this... :-) Just for openers:
1. Wasps
2. Mosquitoes
3. Snakes
3. Earthquakes
4. Hurricanes
5. Tsunamis.
6. Tornados
....
all pretty pointless... and that's before we get to the Apocalyptic stuff...
5. War
6. Pestilence
7. Famine
8. Death
8. Hopelessness and despair
9. Depression
10. Religion
....
& etc.
The problem here is that if you make God responsible for everything then you
have a single valued logic system (Fatalism) and there is no point in us
(you and I) engaging in reasoned debate. There is no right or wrong, only
the will (and rightness) of God.
(I believe this is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and it is
impossible to reason with. The only possible defence to it would be to have
an alternative deity who is more powerful than Allah, and argue that it is
HIS will that must be obeyed. People who have tried this one (Christian
missionaries to Muslim countries) tended to find themselves headless very
quickly (if they were lucky), so it is probably not going to be a persuasive
argument here.)
I guess the best a believer can do is to accept that God DID make junk and
maybe did so to test our perception of what is junk...or for some other
divinely mysterious reason that we cannot fathom at this stage of our
development.
As an atheist I have no problem with there being junk in the Universe, as I
don't expect it to behave morally or fairly, or with deference to the needs
of Men.
>These emotions are normal and natural. It's what we DO with these
>inclinations that counts, not their mere existence. The difference between
>greed and love is similar to the difference between a bucket of paint and a
>stick of dynamite. It is easier to do good or harm with one or the other,
>but good or harm is not ruled out for either (if you force someone to drink
>the paint, they die).
But you are sayng that anyone without a bucket of paint and a stick of
dynamite is abnormal. I say they are simply someone without a bucket of
paint or a stick of dynamite.
>
> At least that's what my tradition teaches, it makes sense to me, and I'm
> sticking to it.
>
Fair enough. A refreshing exposition even if no minds were changed. :-) I
hope you'll reconsider "wacko" in the context of Perelman, but if not, I
have done my best... :-)
>
>
> Heh! Maimonides was once asked: "You say that the Great One, blessed be
> His Name, created man so that man may form profound intellectual concepts
> with his mind. Yet we see that the scholar is only one among many, perhaps
> only one in a generation. Why is it, then, did the Great One, blessed be
> His Name, create so many that do not have the capacity to form great
> intellectual concepts with their minds?"
>
> Maimonides gave a long answer, but to avoid boring you, I'll condense it.
> There are two reasons, said the Rambam, for having a world with many, many
> non-scholars:
>
NOW who's digressing... :-)
> 1) The scholar, if he had it to do by himself, would be overwhelmed by
> just his daily bread. He'd have to learn to sow, cultivate, plant, reap,
> thresh, grind, and bake the wheat, plus make the tools necessary for these
> activities. All this would take an inordinate amount of time, time the
> scholar would NOT have available for study. Many non-scholars were
> created, concluded Maimonides, so the person capable of great intellectual
> thoughts, the scholar, could eat.
>
Uh huh... so the academics can leech of the rest of us, huh? Parasites...:-)
> 2) Inasmuch as man does not live by bread alone, others not capable of
> great intellectual thoughts were created so the scholar would not be
> lonely.
And so the parasites would have someone to look down on and feel superior
to, right? :-)
>
> In these two endeavors, money helps.
Sure, but once you have enough, it is enough.
>
>
> Absence of greed may not, in Dr Perelman's case, be a defect, but it
> certainly is not a blessing.
"While it is no great sin to be poor, it is no great blessing either..."
Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof.
It doesn't mean he is crazy or, given his life's work and the sharing of it,
that he should be described thus...
>I trust you'd agree, for example, that the practice of charity is
>meritorious?
Depends how you practice it.
I know a number of quite famous charities that are actually just profitable
businesses (even though they are stated non-profit) with less than 50% of
the donations reaching the people intended. Fund raising is also a
specialist "consultancy" business with the consultants charging up to 40% of
what is raised. Personally, I only donate to charities that can publish
their accounts and show that less than 20% is overhead. (Oxfam have 15%, and
are on my list; the rest are local...I also believe that charity starts at
home)
>Basic rule: one can't practice charity if one has no resources.
Tell that to VSA. It isn't always about money...
>To the degree one has ample funds, beyond basic needs, one can improve the
>lot of the less fortunate. In this regard, greed helps and helps
>tremendously. There is a French word for one who has the ability to help
>his fellow man and refuses... but I don't know what it is.
That would be "Patriot"...
Pete.
| |
| heynetboy 2006-08-24, 6:55 pm |
| > Oh no? Do you really want to pursue this... :-) Just for openers:
>
> 1. Wasps
> 2. Mosquitoes
> 3. Snakes
> 3. Earthquakes
> 4. Hurricanes
> 5. Tsunamis.
> 6. Tornados
> ...
> all pretty pointless... and that's before we get to the Apocalyptic stuff...
>
> 5. War
> 6. Pestilence
> 7. Famine
> 8. Death
> 8. Hopelessness and despair
> 9. Depression
> 10. Religion
> ...
> & etc.
Lets see, so Tsunamis = War and Tornados = Pestilence? Also do 2
Wasps + 4 Mosquitoes = 1 Religion?
How does that rabbit fit into this?
HNB
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-25, 7:55 am |
|
"heynetboy" <heynetboy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156454484.435382.103780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lets see, so Tsunamis = War and Tornados = Pestilence? Also do 2
> Wasps + 4 Mosquitoes = 1 Religion?
They were examples of 'junk' the creator saw fit to inflict on us... (If you
accept there is/was/will be a creator).
There was never any suggestion they have equivalence or mathematical
relationships with each other, any more than 1 used condom = Bush's last
speech or 3 discarded plastic bags = 1 potato peeling...
>
> How does that rabbit fit into this?
The rabbit is a figment of HeyBub's imagination (sometimes he thinks he's
Jimmy Stewart...:-)). The conjecture involves an elastic band, an apple and
a doughnut....
Try not to lose sleep over it...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Alistair 2006-08-25, 7:55 am |
|
HeyBub wrote:
> Absence of greed may not, in Dr Perelman's case, be a defect, but it
> certainly is not a blessing. I trust you'd agree, for example, that the
> practice of charity is meritorious? Basic rule: one can't practice charity
> if one has no resources.
Time. One always has times. There is always, therefore, something that
one can give.
> To the degree one has ample funds, beyond basic
> needs, one can improve the lot of the less fortunate. In this regard, greed
> helps and helps tremendously. There is a French word for one who has the
> ability to help his fellow man and refuses... but I don't know what it is.
Parisienne?
| |
| Alistair 2006-08-25, 7:55 am |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Oh no? Do you really want to pursue this... :-) Just for openers:
>
> 1. Wasps
> 2. Mosquitoes
> 3. Snakes
I object to the above three items being included on the list. Wasps
species are active in pest control, male mosquitos do not suck blood
(therefore must live on other food sources such as nectar) so
presumably are capable of doing some good. Snakes are very good at
vermin control. In areas where snakes are substantially reduced in
number due to human decimation of their species, the numbers of mice
and rats increase to pestilential levels (and contaminate grain
stocks).
> 3. Earthquakes
> 4. Hurricanes
> 5. Tsunamis.
> 6. Tornados
These four are very useful to religious nutters who can claim that they
are manifestations of their God(s) because of man's misdemeanours.
Sometimes the attribution backfires (tsunamis decimating Muslim
populations).
> ...
> all pretty pointless... and that's before we get to the Apocalyptic stuff...
>
> 5. War
> 6. Pestilence
> 7. Famine
> 8. Death
> 8. Hopelessness and despair
> 9. Depression
> 10. Religion
> ...
> & etc.
>
> The problem here is that if you make God responsible for everything then you
> have a single valued logic system (Fatalism) and there is no point in us
> (you and I) engaging in reasoned debate. There is no right or wrong, only
> the will (and rightness) of God.
>
> (I believe this is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and it is
> impossible to reason with. The only possible defence to it would be to have
> an alternative deity who is more powerful than Allah, and argue that it is
> HIS will that must be obeyed. People who have tried this one (Christian
> missionaries to Muslim countries) tended to find themselves headless very
> quickly (if they were lucky), so it is probably not going to be a persuasive
> argument here.)
>
> I guess the best a believer can do is to accept that God DID make junk and
> maybe did so to test our perception of what is junk...or for some other
> divinely mysterious reason that we cannot fathom at this stage of our
> development.
>
> As an atheist I have no problem with there being junk in the Universe, as I
> don't expect it to behave morally or fairly, or with deference to the needs
> of Men.
>
>
> But you are sayng that anyone without a bucket of paint and a stick of
> dynamite is abnormal. I say they are simply someone without a bucket of
> paint or a stick of dynamite.
> Fair enough. A refreshing exposition even if no minds were changed. :-) I
> hope you'll reconsider "wacko" in the context of Perelman, but if not, I
> have done my best... :-)
> NOW who's digressing... :-)
>
>
> Uh huh... so the academics can leech of the rest of us, huh? Parasites...:-)
>
>
>
> And so the parasites would have someone to look down on and feel superior
> to, right? :-)
>
>
> Sure, but once you have enough, it is enough.
>
>
> "While it is no great sin to be poor, it is no great blessing either..."
> Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof.
>
> It doesn't mean he is crazy or, given his life's work and the sharing of it,
> that he should be described thus...
>
>
>
> Depends how you practice it.
>
> I know a number of quite famous charities that are actually just profitable
> businesses (even though they are stated non-profit) with less than 50% of
> the donations reaching the people intended. Fund raising is also a
> specialist "consultancy" business with the consultants charging up to 40% of
> what is raised. Personally, I only donate to charities that can publish
> their accounts and show that less than 20% is overhead. (Oxfam have 15%, and
> are on my list; the rest are local...I also believe that charity starts at
> home)
>
>
> Tell that to VSA. It isn't always about money...
>
>
> That would be "Patriot"...
>
> Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-26, 3:55 am |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1156506889.729965.85900@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I object to the above three items being included on the list. Wasps
> species are active in pest control, male mosquitos do not suck blood
> (therefore must live on other food sources such as nectar) so
> presumably are capable of doing some good. Snakes are very good at
> vermin control. In areas where snakes are substantially reduced in
> number due to human decimation of their species, the numbers of mice
> and rats increase to pestilential levels (and contaminate grain
> stocks).
>
Your objection is noted... :-)
I could argue each of them, but I can't be bothered. Perhaps you should take
it up with God...? (I bet He has some blinding arguments in favour... :-))
>
>
>
> These four are very useful to religious nutters who can claim that they
> are manifestations of their God(s) because of man's misdemeanours.
> Sometimes the attribution backfires (tsunamis decimating Muslim
> populations).
>
Still 'junk' as far as I'm concerned... :-)
Lots of junk is useful (that's why people forage landfill sites...), but
it's still junk. HeyBub's point was that God doesn't make junk. I simply
disagree... There are many "Acts of God" that the world would be a better
(certainly "safer for us") place without.
If my house gets wiped out by a meteorite in the next few days, I wonder how
many people reading this would see it as divine retribution for my heresy.
Yet, the chances of it happeneing are exactly the same whether I believe in
God or not.
For a Frenchman, of course...
[color=darkred]
>
| |
| Richard 2006-08-26, 3:55 am |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Yet, the chances of it happeneing are exactly the same whether I believe in
> God or not.
Or, indeed, whichever of the many 'gods', goddesses, fairies or santas,
one imagines.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-08-26, 3:55 am |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156579501.075791.132900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> Or, indeed, whichever of the many 'gods', goddesses, fairies or santas,
> one imagines.
>
Now come on, Richard, you can't say Santa's not real... I've watched the
Farmers' parade down Queen Street... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2006-08-31, 7:55 am |
| In article <1156454484.435382.103780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"heynetboy" <heynetboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lets see, so Tsunamis = War and Tornados = Pestilence? Also do 2
> Wasps + 4 Mosquitoes = 1 Religion?
>
> How does that rabbit fit into this?
>
> HNB
Is that a spherical rabbit? Or the regular kind?
|
|
|
|
|