Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Ol'coot...
>
> Sheesh.. How do I get dragged into these things..  ;)
>
>  *>It is unreasonable to presume that the possibility that I proposed does not
>  *>exist, lacking complete proof that this possibility is not indeed true.
>
> Au contraire.   It is unreasonable to assume the existance of anything and
> everything humans can possibly imagine, without evidence.  And extraordinary
> claims such as yours require extraordinary evidence.
>

Although this is reasoning is "conventional wisdom" it fails
to be correct. The ONLY way to the actual truth is to
assume the exhaustively complete enumeration of every possible
assertion, rejecting only those that result in contradiction.
Although this leaqves many unaswered questions, it
NEVER leaves one with an incorrect answer.

>
> Following YOUR logic, you must believe that there's an invisible Pink AllPowerful
> Unicorn in my basement.  Simply because you lack "complete proof that this
> possibility is not indeed true."
>
> The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Ol'coot.  Otherwise, everything that
> every moron utters would have to be true until proven false.
>
> I much prefer withholding judgement until sufficient evidence presents itself.
> Disbelief as a default makes MUCH more sense.  ;)
>

You are not withholding judgment.
You have already decided. You
have decided that its worth the
risk of (seemingly improbable)
Hell, for the right to be mean and nasty.

>
>  *> Atheists make the same error of most believers, of jumping to conclusions.
>
> But rational folks understand that humans make mistakes, and we surely know the
> most common ones.  We can train ourselves into NOT making those silly mistakes
> you're falling into so easily.  ;)
>
>  *>They (as most believers) presume that their opinions are one and the same
>  *>thing as truth.
>
> But atheists aren't making supernatural claims, Ol'coot.  And in general, if a
> rational person makes a claim, he can at least present _some_ kind of evidence to
> back him up.  If not, then he deserves no more regard as anyone else making
> unfounded assertions.  Now why don't YOU present evidence for this "Hell", Hmmm?
>
>  *>In statistics this is known as a type two statistical error.
>
> BS.  That's know as Turlette Technobabble.  ;)
>

Just because of your ignorance of the meaning of
term, does not logically entail that this term was
not used correctly.

>
>  *>Even within mere human nature, hatefulness reaps hatefulness, and thus often
>  *>hatefulness is not worth its price.
>
> But perhaps this time it is.  I'm willing to try.  ;)
>
>  *>May you reap fully as you sow to be corrected from the error of your ways...
>  *>ONLY to be corrected, and not for any degree of vengeance or retribution.
>
> Cool.... And perhaps you can stop stealing software.  It's not moral to take
> someones property, intellectual or not, without their permission.
>

If they have utterly abandoned it, then it is immoral
to let it go to waste. If you examine patent law,
you will realize that owners are only allowed
ownership for the benefit of society. An owner
does not have the moral right to make sure that
their creation is wasted.

>
> I don't foresee you doing any time for your trangressions, but it certainly makes
> you look like a hippocrite spouting morallistic judgments.  ;)
>
> That loser Dorktor Tom is a lost cause.   WAY too much drug use in his past.
> He'll keep stealing and lying until he shuffles off to that stinky compost pile
> in the sky.
>
> There may still be hope for you.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat