The ctrl+v thread!

[afealicious]

This document contains no data.

[nikki4982]

http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/view ... p?p=537535

[xoNoDoubt69]

http://www.fanfire.com/cgi-bin/WebObjec ... u=MAR35907

[Soozy]

http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/view ... hp?t=11419

[nikki4982]

[Interesting] Watching 'CSI' type shows causes jurors to demand precise video re-enactments in trials, along with those cool squishy noises - 3 hours ago

[half jill]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/ ... iggies.jpg

[nikki4982]

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

The Box Of Death!

So, my self cleaning cat litter box broke. Cat kept doing its thing. After a couple of weeks.....well, you get the idea. That box became something out of my darkest nightmares. My girlfriend bought a new box so all i had to do was trash the old one. Sounds simple, no? No. I didn't want to try and clean out its horrible contents. I mean, why? Just gonna throw it out anyway. We originally had a fragrance fan pointed at it, so we didn't really notice the stench until I moved it. THEN....the worst smell of pee pee death EVER. I live on one of the top floors of my building and only two of the 8 elevators are working cause they are upgrading them. I took the elevator to the bottom floor to ask for the freight elevator key, to see if I could use that elevator in case someone else got on the passenger elevator while I was taking the stink box down. They had already shut off the generator, so no go. I took the elevator back up to my room. On the way down, and now back up, no one else entered the elevator. Seemed safe.
I dragged the ultimate stink box to the elevator. The doors opened. No one there. Whew...
I got on and the doors shut. I pressed floor .1. I made it down only one floor, when the doors opened and a lady got on. She did a sniffy thing with her nose and looked at me in terror. I assured her the stench was the cat box and not me. I apologized for the situation.
We went down one more floor. The doors opened and two more hapless victims entered. Again, I explained the situation and apologized repeatedly. One of the guys asked if the cat was actually in the box, dead.
We passed one floor and then sure enough stopped, again. Two women entered. They obviously came from the model agency that is located on that floor. By now the elevator is unholy in its stenchy-ness. On of the girls did a gag-gonna throw up sound. I just looked at her and said "I am so very very sorry."
We made it down one more floor. One guy got on, the two model girls got off. I noticed it was not the floor they had pressed. Looks like they opted for taking the steps. I apologized to the new guy and then we made it to floor .1. The doors opened and everyone hurried out. I mean they fucking fought to get out of that elevator. There were gasps for air and wiping tears from burned eyes.
I dragged the box to the dumpster and threw it away.
I pressed the button for the elevator and waited. The same one opened back up. I and a girl I had never seen before entered. She went "Ewwww... What the hell was in here?!" I went "Aw man, that is awful," and then acted as though we were both victims. I got back to my apartment, sat down utterly defeated, and marveled at how aful that whole situation turned out. I would forever be the "stinky guy" to all those who had been unfortunate enough to take that particular elevator journey with me. I then noticed that my fly was down.
I went to bed.

[AnnieDreams]

Sunglasses, Nail Polish Remover, Lamp = spectroscope

[afealicious]

[afealicious]

[Axtech]

OMG piggy!

[happening fish]

yay

[afealicious]

(º¿º)

[happening fish]

alexandra says:
and then my dad toldme the best story EVER
alexandra says:
omg
alexandra says:
"One time when I was in University in Thunder Bay, I went to this party and this guy I knew was there and he was just laughing away, and I couldn't figure out what was funny. Turns out... he was high! Oh and then he died in a car accident."
sinead says:
hahahahahahahaha WTF
alexandra says:
I DON'T KNOW!
sinead says:
i LOVE your dad.
alexandra says:
first of all, was that like, the ONE experience with a "high" person he's ever had?
alexandra says:
also, what exactly is the moral of this story?!?!

[afealicious]

º\_/º

[Soozy]

[19:15] <WTE> Well, Afe can't send me her OK Go video and I want it, and you have it, so we should work out some sort of deal that results in me getting it and then loving you forever.

[AnnieDreams]

“El Coro de Niños y Jóvenes Ars Nova cierra su temporada 2005”
Tras su exitoso regreso de Buenos Aires, con una crítica especializada que lo calificó de “5 estrellas”, el Coro de Niños y Jóvenes Ars Nova cierra sus actividades de la temporada 2005 realizando su clásico “Concierto Anual” el día miércoles 30 de Noviembre en la Iglesia de San Alfonso a las 21:00 hs. , como lo viene realizando desde su fundación en 1988.

Este es el saldo de un año pleno de actividad y de calidad del internacionalmente conocido Coro de Niños y Jóvenes Ars Nova de nuestra ciudad:

La presente temporada lo llevó a ofrecer 36 conciertos en Salta, Tarija –Bolivia, Buenos Aires, y Terranova – Canadá.

Recordemos que además de estos compromisos, el Ars Nova fue organizador y responsable de la presentación en Salta del Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir de Canadá; de varias donaciones a Instituciones de nuestro medio; del estreno mundial de obras del Maestro Eduardo Alonso Crespo (Ara Pana) y de René Vargas Vera ( La Ciudad de Brujas), obras que dichos músicos escribieron especialmente para el Coro de Niños y Jóvenes Ars Nova.

La Directora del Ars Nova Betty Fernández de Briones por su parte, contó también con una apretada agenda de actividades internacionales, que la llevó como invitada a formar parte del grupo de miembros del Jurado Internacional en las competencias Corales “Harmonie” en Limburg y de “Coros de Cámara en Marktoberdorf” , ambas en Alemania.

Además participó como disertante invitada en el “Simposio para especialistas de la Voz”, en la “Universidad de St. John’s” – Canadá; en el “Festival Internacional Sharing Voices 500” dictando talleres para Directores, cantantes y músicos en general; y en la “Academia Bávara de Música”, dictando talleres de música Argentina para Coros Mixtos de Cámara de Latvia, Portland y asistentes en general.

Con la presentación del miércoles 30 de Noviembre en la Iglesia de San Alfonso, el Ars Nova se despide del público salteño, y a su vez el Ars Nova despide a un grupo valioso de coreutas que este año egresan de la agrupación: Mariela Borigen, Pilar Rodríguez, Claudia Carrizo, Juan Sonderegger y Luz Niewolski.

También será el “concierto de bautismo” de una nueva camada de cantantes que ya se están preparando en esta agrupación formadora de artistas para llevar el canto coral por nuestro país y el mundo. Este “Concierto Anual” es ya conocido y esperado por los seguidores del Ars Nova, ya que en él se incluyen siempre los mejores trabajos de la temporada y tienen una carga emotiva muy grande.

La próxima temporada 2006, espera al Ars Nova con una apretada agenda de conciertos en el país y en el exterior, de modo que lo recaudado en dicho concierto contribuirá a cubrir parte de los gastos emanados de las futuras presentaciones y nuevos proyectos de la agrupación.

La cita es entonces el miércoles 30 de Noviembre a las 21:00 hs. en la Iglesia de San Alfonso.




I love getting e-mails I don't understand!

[afealicious]

https://order.affinity-tickets.com/edir ... ode=public

[thirdhour]

For the uneducated man one of the most convincing of all "proofs" for the existance of a god is the watchmaker argument. It was presented by William Paley in Natural Theology, and the opening passage begins like this (Paley, 1802):
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there."
Further down Paley continues:
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
The argument is wrong for several reasons:
Contradiction
The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random. It then states that since the universe is so complicated, complex, and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, the argument gives the universe two incompatible qualities.
Shoemakers
What if you went further down the beach and found a shoe. Would you assume that a watchmaker made that shoe? Of course not, you would assume a shoemaker. Therefore, according to the analogy, created life must have a lifemaker, the sun a sunmaker and snowflakes a snowmaker. This implies that there are several creators in the world, responsible for all kinds of creation.
The watchmaker's father
Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker anology, god has a father. Who is the father of god? and who is the father of the father? etc... This leads to an endless series, and the only way to end the series is to say that the original god just is without an origin and a cause. What then stops us from making the same assumption of the universe or Ultimate Reality? Occam's razor should even encourage us to do so!
Watches out of nothing?
The things used by the watchmaker to make watches already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here too.
The blind watchmaker
Richard Dawkins expains this best with his own words in the book The Blind Watchmaker (1986)
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."
False analogy
The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

A watch is complex
A watch has a watchmaker
The universe is also complex
Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clearified by another example:


Leaves are complex cellulose structures
Leaves grow on trees
Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
Therefore money grow on trees (wich, according to the idiom, they don't)
Empiric argument
But the theist may object, and say that all known complex objects we know of are created, so for empirical reasons, the universe must have a creator. It is logically a false analogy, but we can still use the empiric analogy that all complex objects are created.
This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker".

The theist may object again and say that this is a circular argument too. You have to assume a priori that theese things evolved naturally to believe they did. Philosophically that may be correct. Both theese empiric methods are built on more or less unproved premises. Therefore you can neither, empirically, say for absolutely sure that the universe evolved on it's own nor that it was created.

Does this imply that both conclusions are equally correct? No, for the first Occam's Razor says that one should not assume an entity that is unproven and thus tells us not to assume a god. Therefore, the watchmaker argument does not stand for itself as a proof of any watchmaker. To prove that god did it you would need more than just apparent design.

For the second the theist position has two additional criteria -- while assuming a god that remains unproved (remember it was a circular argument running foul to Occam's Razor), it also assumes that the scientific method is wrong. A scientific method that is verified everyday when we get dressed with mass produced clothes, when we cook our food, when we eat, when we use computers, telephones, cars, pharmaceutics etc. The theory that the scientific method is correct has not yet been falsified. When it comes to explaining things in the world we can say what the French astronomer Laplace said to Napoleon Bonaparte on the matter of god: "I have no need for that hypothesis".

Summary
The watchmaker argument is not a proof, it is an analogy. As most other analogies it is quite lame. It is contradictive, misses many important features, does not aid us in knowing who the watchmaker is, and most important does not stand alone as evidence of god, but must reliy on external evidence. Therefore the argument does not the least prove that the world was designed by a superhuman being. I cannot help ending with these rude, yet beautiful and poetic, words, which sum up P.W. Atkins wonderful book The Second Law (Atkins, 1994)

[Hope]

http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/view ... ht=#459983