California Helmet Law

On Sep 14, 8:45*pm, snowbender
wrote:

...and yes, I too have a problem
with people who think that because they can spell some scientific
jargons so they can pretend that they are some kind of expert...

Instead you consider yourself credible in scientific matters (such as
in Political Science) by stating you took a single undergraduate
course in college.

There are educated people in this group. You are not one of those
people with respect to many fields of science. The wise man (of which
you are not) would not put oneself on equal footing as those with FAR
more education and life experience in a particular field of study.
Again, I assume you will respond to this with more terribly crafted
sentences trying desperately to rationalize a reason why you should be
listened to. I preemptively, and vehemently disagree with whatever
absurd position you are about to put forth.

On Sep 14, 9:19*pm, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:45*pm, snowbender
wrote:

...and yes, I too have a problem
with people who think that because they can spell some scientific
jargons so they can pretend that they are some kind of expert...

Instead you consider yourself credible in scientific matters (such as
in Political Science) by stating you took a single undergraduate
course in college.

Holy ****. Did you just call Political Science a science? How
****ing stupid are you, Yabapussy?
Hey, how about some details regarding your Pussy Party?
How humiliating for you, sneaking into town and not even a courtesy
stalk of my home.

There are educated people in this group.

There are psychopaths, pathological liars, dickless cowards, stalking
wack jobs, wet brained transvestites, and you.

*You are not one of those
people with respect to many fields of science. *The wise man (of which
you are not) would not put oneself on equal footing as those with FAR
more education and life experience in a particular field of study.

A wise man would not attend a Bob Thompson Pussy Party while lying
about where he lives, ppppppuuuuusssssyyyyyy.
You outed yourself. How ****ing stupid can you get?


Again, I assume you will respond to this with more terribly crafted
sentences trying desperately to rationalize a reason why you should be
listened to. *I preemptively, and vehemently disagree with whatever
absurd position you are about to put forth.

What if he calls you a dickless, lying piece of **** coward who snuck
through town, hid the location of the Brain Fried Bob Pussy Party,
etc.
That was some pretty absurd ppppppuuuuuusssssyyyyy positioning,
ppppuusssssyyyy.
Hey, missed you at Husky Stadium. How's that diaper supply, bet you
ran low this weekend.

On Sep 14, 8:45*pm, snowbender
wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:54 pm, Ted Waldron wrote:

In article
,

*snowbender wrote:
Not sure which is kooky post, my "Realism and Nominalism" challenge or
you who cannot face the rebuttals and change the subject to redirect
the attention that you have lost the arguments and wouldn't want to
admit.

* The kooky post , that I was replying to was trying to show that Taoism
explains Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. *I *just have a
problem with people who constantly spew garbage of combining
metaphysical ideas with scientific principles as one entity.

Before you can prove my post is kooky and call my post kooky is what
makes yourself the kooky person already, and yes, I too have a problem
with people who think that because they can spell some scientific
jargons so they can pretend that they are some kind of expert on
metaphysical ideas with scientific principles.

* I gave some examples of trying of trying to show how at times,
combining the two, then pretending this is scientific proven, is just
rubbish.

Given that you cannot counter my rebuttals, it's your pretension of
that you know better is the rubbish, and lesser you can counter my
rebuttals, the deeper the denial, and the lower class rubbish you go,
and soon, like many geppers before you, you too will turn into a
shameless denial if you don't know how to stop your rubbish.

* I know what Nominalism is, thank you very much, given it was a big
part of European Medieval philosophy. *I don't see a point in arguing
minute details in a rec.skiing group.

According to Nominalism, your world is only as big as what your mind
can perceive, which at this point doesn't show much but pretensions
and denials.

* *We are going to have to agree to disagree. I am hardly going to
change your point of view, and you are hardly going to change mine.
However, I think you should realize what a complete buffoon you come
across by when you combine metaphysics with ski mechanics. * I like
metaphysics. I just don't like it when it is skewered, or it is used in
a self righteous manner.

Interesting how you self righteous persons don't see yourselves self
righteous behaviors, guess that's what makes you a gepper. No, I don't
think that you know much what "metaphysics" really is, nor Taoism. So
no, can't agree with the disagreement; the fact is that you are really
only a half baked new-ager gepper who thinks he know but "cannot pick
it up, cannot put it down."

* Enjoy your dance of Cosmos, just make sure your edges are sharpened,
you check the Avy conditions, and you are bundled up. *Don't be bothered
by the space is a vacuum thing, or the gamma rays..

Thanks for the concern, nowadays, though still take some calculated
risks sometime, but skiing is now always "safety first"; with feet
firmly hug the snow and hands are waving free, I don't ski with
illusions.

snowbender

Geppers?

On Sep 14, 5:34*pm, downhill wrote:
Ted Waldron wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:

Not sure which is kooky post, my "Realism and Nominalism" challenge or
you who cannot face the rebuttals and change the subject to redirect
the attention that you have lost the arguments and wouldn't want to
admit.

* The kooky post , that I was replying to was trying to show that Taoism
explains Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. *I *just have a
problem with people who constantly spew garbage of combining
metaphysical ideas with scientific principles as one entity. *

* I gave some examples of trying of trying to show how at times,
combining the two, then pretending this is scientific proven, is just
rubbish.

* I know what Nominalism is, thank you very much, given it was a big
part of European Medieval philosophy. *I don't see a point in arguing
minute details in a rec.skiing group.

* *We are going to have to agree to disagree. I am hardly going to
change your point of view, and you are hardly going to change mine. *
However, I think you should realize what a complete buffoon you come
across by when you combine metaphysics with ski mechanics. * I like
metaphysics. I just don't like it when it is skewered, or it is used in
a self righteous manner.

* Enjoy your dance of Cosmos, just make sure your edges are sharpened,
you check the Avy conditions, and you are bundled up. *Don't be bothered
by the space is a vacuum thing, or the gamma rays..

Trying to explain or convince him that his thought pattern is not
logical is just like trying to teach my 5 year old differential calculus
with rates of acceleration of race cars, at least he is understanding
that some cars are faster than others.

Trying to teach you moral and ethical behavior is like trying to teach
a five year old.
Oooops, sorry. Five year olds are more manly than you.

On Sep 14, 10:53*pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:45*pm, snowbender
wrote:





On Sep 14, 12:54 pm, Ted Waldron wrote:

In article
,

*snowbender wrote:
Not sure which is kooky post, my "Realism and Nominalism" challenge or
you who cannot face the rebuttals and change the subject to redirect
the attention that you have lost the arguments and wouldn't want to
admit.

* The kooky post , that I was replying to was trying to show that Taoism
explains Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. *I *just have a
problem with people who constantly spew garbage of combining
metaphysical ideas with scientific principles as one entity.

Before you can prove my post is kooky and call my post kooky is what
makes yourself the kooky person already, and yes, I too have a problem
with people who think that because they can spell some scientific
jargons so they can pretend that they are some kind of expert on
metaphysical ideas with scientific principles.

* I gave some examples of trying of trying to show how at times,
combining the two, then pretending this is scientific proven, is just
rubbish.

Given that you cannot counter my rebuttals, it's your pretension of
that you know better is the rubbish, and lesser you can counter my
rebuttals, the deeper the denial, and the lower class rubbish you go,
and soon, like many geppers before you, you too will turn into a
shameless denial if you don't know how to stop your rubbish.

* I know what Nominalism is, thank you very much, given it was a big
part of European Medieval philosophy. *I don't see a point in arguing
minute details in a rec.skiing group.

According to Nominalism, your world is only as big as what your mind
can perceive, which at this point doesn't show much but pretensions
and denials.

* *We are going to have to agree to disagree. I am hardly going to
change your point of view, and you are hardly going to change mine.
However, I think you should realize what a complete buffoon you come
across by when you combine metaphysics with ski mechanics. * I like
metaphysics. I just don't like it when it is skewered, or it is used in
a self righteous manner.

Interesting how you self righteous persons don't see yourselves self
righteous behaviors, guess that's what makes you a gepper. No, I don't
think that you know much what "metaphysics" really is, nor Taoism. So
no, can't agree with the disagreement; the fact is that you are really
only a half baked new-ager gepper who thinks he know but "cannot pick
it up, cannot put it down."

* Enjoy your dance of Cosmos, just make sure your edges are sharpened,
you check the Avy conditions, and you are bundled up. *Don't be bothered
by the space is a vacuum thing, or the gamma rays..

Thanks for the concern, nowadays, though still take some calculated
risks sometime, but skiing is now always "safety first"; with feet
firmly hug the snow and hands are waving free, I don't ski with
illusions.

snowbender

Geppers?

I'm sure SPD can explain that to me. Contact info?
Hey, any comment on your buddy Brain Fried Bob talking **** about
setting a meet in Seattle, then outing himself as a lying piece of
**** coward by admitting he never got closer than 300 miles to town?
Holy ****, this is almost as embarassing as the EMERGENCY SOCCER
GAME!!!!!!!!!

On Sep 15, 12:10*am, Ted Waldron wrote:
In article
,

*snowbender wrote:

According to Nominalism, your world is only as big as what your mind
can perceive, which at this point doesn't show much but pretensions
and denials.

*ROFL... oh boy. *Don't give up your day job for philosophy... *Why
don't you look up "conceptualism"?

Why don't YOU look up perjury? You know, where you present evidence
in court after you have sworn the evidence exists?

* Itchy, look, we are not going to get anywhere on this. *I would
probably write also that you should look up, "flatus vocis", and also
one of my favorite logic tools by William of Ockham...

Hre is some logic for you. Show the post, Ted. Did William of Ockham
threaten your life, too? There's that Razor thingie....


*Anyway take care.. Just beware that impotent rage will be thrown at you
as you misconstrue concepts and ideas. * Enjoy the season..

Geez, Teddy, your impotent rage has been thrown at me for years,
ppppppuuuuusssssyyyyyyy.

On Sep 14, 9:19 pm, Yabahoobs wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:45 pm, snowbender
wrote:

...and yes, I too have a problem
with people who think that because they can spell some scientific
jargons so they can pretend that they are some kind of expert...

Instead you consider yourself credible in scientific matters (such as
in Political Science) by stating you took a single undergraduate
course in college.

You are talking as though after the college you no longer learn
anymore? Guess that's what makes you a little knowledge.

There are educated people in this group. You are not one of those
people with respect to many fields of science. The wise man (of which
you are not) would not put oneself on equal footing as those with FAR
more education and life experience in a particular field of study.

Gobble, gobble, "according to Nominalism, your world is only as big as
what your mind can perceive," so your little knowledge, lacking of
contents and living experience, really can't tell much.

Again, I assume you will respond to this with more terribly crafted
sentences trying desperately to rationalize a reason why you should be
listened to. I preemptively, and vehemently disagree with whatever
absurd position you are about to put forth.

Why should I care how you want to live your mediocre life?

snowbender

On Sep 15, 12:10 am, Ted Waldron wrote:
In article
,

snowbender wrote:

According to Nominalism, your world is only as big as what your mind
can perceive, which at this point doesn't show much but pretensions
and denials.

ROFL... oh boy. Don't give up your day job for philosophy... Why
don't you look up "conceptualism"?


"Conceptualism" is not part of "illusion"? No, holding a full-time day
job is not my idea of living, as it is not as important as finding out
the meaning of life or knowing what life is. Life, the ultimate cosmos
orgasm, you have to be in there to know it.

Itchy, look, we are not going to get anywhere on this. I would
probably write also that you should look up, "flatus vocis", and also
one of my favorite logic tools by William of Ockham...

"The Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name;
No-name is the mother of all things;
Naming gives the birth to everything."--Tao Te Ching 1.--

I know a little bit of what you are going on about., because I had to
read (and wrote) much on Medieval Philosophy. Umberto Eco's novel "In
the Name of the Rose" is much about the battle of Realism and Nominalism
in the Medieval Church, (hence the name of the book) for example.

You may know the history, but not the philosophical contents of their
debates. Scientific analysis maybe is convincing, but really,
empirical living lives more "life." And that is a larger domain [of
life].

Anyway take care.. Just beware that impotent rage will be thrown at you
as you misconstrue concepts and ideas. Enjoy the season..

Well, what cannot defeat me can only make me stronger, thanks for
playing.

snowbender

On Sep 15, 12:19*pm, snowbender
wrote:

Why should I care how you want to live your mediocre life?

LoL.

On Sep 15, 12:22*pm, snowbender
wrote:

Well, what cannot defeat me can only make me stronger, thanks for
playing.

When you aren't able to put forth any argument or opinion or video
evidence of any of your apparent "causes" or interests that
demonstrate anything except your own incompetence and arrogance, you
probably shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.