Fun with exponents

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 4:34:59 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

[some stuff about how he worked two jobs to become a lawyer]

Yes, but what we want to know is, What is Nicholas Cage really like?

Not pressuring you but an answer before sunset would be nice.

Andre Jute
Being born is a fatal experience. All that remains to be ascertained is the time and the place.

Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC is
like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you slavishly
follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental capacities.

In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left and the
left accused them of being on the right.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC is
like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you slavishly
follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental capacities.

In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left and the
left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all, is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did. The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.. Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports my forecast.

Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:59:57 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

You'll forgive me if I don't enter extended correspondence with a semi-detached German who has already tried to wield his Ph.D. like a club, and told us of his religious attachment unto death to Darwin Doctrine. It will do absolutely no good to argue with your German preconceptions, expressed in your hilarious belief that the BBC's "brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer". I have no time for bashing my head against immovable objects, like a German who believes that anglo institutions obey their marching orders because they *are* orders, and Germans would not dream of disobeying. But I'll make you a counter-offer: Prove to my satisfaction that the BBC faithfully executed "its brief of 'balanced reporting'" about global warming, and I'll reconsider explaining British politics and the BBC's contempt for balanced reporting to you. It still won't do any good, because you won't believe me and you don't have the wherewithal to change your mind, but you will have earned the right to waste some of my time.

Andre Jute
I often wonder why otherwise sophisticated people believe operating a keyboard qualifies them as polemicists.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:42:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:59:57 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

You'll forgive me if I don't enter extended correspondence with a semi-detached German who has already tried to wield his Ph.D. like a club, and told us of his religious attachment unto death to Darwin Doctrine. It will do absolutely no good to argue with your German preconceptions, expressed in your hilarious belief that the BBC's "brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer". I have no time for bashing my head against immovable objects, like a German who believes that anglo institutions obey their marching orders because they *are* orders, and Germans would not dream of disobeying. But I'll make you a counter-offer: Prove to my satisfaction that the BBC faithfully executed "its brief of 'balanced reporting'" about global warming, and I'll reconsider explaining British politics and the BBC's contempt for balanced reporting to you. It still won't do any good, because you won't believe me and you don't have the wherewithal to change your mind, but you will have earned the right to waste some of my time.

Andre Jute
I often wonder why otherwise sophisticated people believe operating a keyboard qualifies them as polemicists.

We know the rate at which DNA can successfully mutate. We have also in 200 years or so since Darwin attempted to find a SINGLE new species and have been totally unable to do so. Theoretically if such a thing could happen there would be a species here or there on the edge of change to a new species but we haven't found on of any sort.

Consider, for every one successful change in a single pair in a strand of DNA there are 77,000 fatal errors. There are 3.3 Billion base pairs.

The speed of development from Homo Erectus to Sapiens was simply too fast for evolution to be in control. The time from the surviving mammals from the Age of Extinction to Homo Sapiens could require more time for evolution than the age of the Universe. Not to mention that Sol and its planetary system is a third generation star. This makes it absolutely impossible for evolution in the Darwinian sense to have brought about this world we know.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:12:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:42:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:59:57 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

You'll forgive me if I don't enter extended correspondence with a semi-detached German who has already tried to wield his Ph.D. like a club, and told us of his religious attachment unto death to Darwin Doctrine. It will do absolutely no good to argue with your German preconceptions, expressed in your hilarious belief that the BBC's "brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer". I have no time for bashing my head against immovable objects, like a German who believes that anglo institutions obey their marching orders because they *are* orders, and Germans would not dream of disobeying. But I'll make you a counter-offer: Prove to my satisfaction that the BBC faithfully executed "its brief of 'balanced reporting'" about global warming, and I'll reconsider explaining British politics and the BBC's contempt for balanced reporting to you. It still won't do any good, because you won't believe me and you don't have the wherewithal to change your mind, but you will have earned the right to waste some of my time.

Andre Jute
I often wonder why otherwise sophisticated people believe operating a keyboard qualifies them as polemicists.

We know the rate at which DNA can successfully mutate. We have also in 200 years or so since Darwin attempted to find a SINGLE new species and have been totally unable to do so. Theoretically if such a thing could happen there would be a species here or there on the edge of change to a new species but we haven't found on of any sort.

Consider, for every one successful change in a single pair in a strand of DNA there are 77,000 fatal errors. There are 3.3 Billion base pairs.

The speed of development from Homo Erectus to Sapiens was simply too fast for evolution to be in control. The time from the surviving mammals from the Age of Extinction to Homo Sapiens could require more time for evolution than the age of the Universe. Not to mention that Sol and its planetary system is a third generation star. This makes it absolutely impossible for evolution in the Darwinian sense to have brought about this world we know.

Disregarding you later points modern science does not agree that
modern man evolved from Homo Erectus. They are viewed as simply a
sub-species that was not successful.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 1:36:57 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:12:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:42:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:59:57 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

You'll forgive me if I don't enter extended correspondence with a semi-detached German who has already tried to wield his Ph.D. like a club, and told us of his religious attachment unto death to Darwin Doctrine. It will do absolutely no good to argue with your German preconceptions, expressed in your hilarious belief that the BBC's "brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer". I have no time for bashing my head against immovable objects, like a German who believes that anglo institutions obey their marching orders because they *are* orders, and Germans would not dream of disobeying. But I'll make you a counter-offer: Prove to my satisfaction that the BBC faithfully executed "its brief of 'balanced reporting'" about global warming, and I'll reconsider explaining British politics and the BBC's contempt for balanced reporting to you. It still won't do any good, because you won't believe me and you don't have the wherewithal to change your mind, but you will have earned the right to waste some of my time.

Andre Jute
I often wonder why otherwise sophisticated people believe operating a keyboard qualifies them as polemicists.

We know the rate at which DNA can successfully mutate. We have also in 200 years or so since Darwin attempted to find a SINGLE new species and have been totally unable to do so. Theoretically if such a thing could happen there would be a species here or there on the edge of change to a new species but we haven't found on of any sort.

Consider, for every one successful change in a single pair in a strand of DNA there are 77,000 fatal errors. There are 3.3 Billion base pairs.

The speed of development from Homo Erectus to Sapiens was simply too fast for evolution to be in control. The time from the surviving mammals from the Age of Extinction to Homo Sapiens could require more time for evolution than the age of the Universe. Not to mention that Sol and its planetary system is a third generation star. This makes it absolutely impossible for evolution in the Darwinian sense to have brought about this world we know.

Disregarding you later points modern science does not agree that
modern man evolved from Homo Erectus. They are viewed as simply a
sub-species that was not successful.
--
cheers,

John B.

If it is true that Homo Erectus is an unsuccessful branch of Darwinian evolution and not our ancestor, that makes all Tom's points stronger still. Was that your intention, Slow Johnny? Are we about to discover that on your day off you visit the sick like a Christian gentleman -- and help little old ladies across the street, whether want to cross or not.

Andre Jute
Except for those steam-age PhDs still trying to catch up to the 20th century, the Cambrian Explosion killed Darwin stone dead for anyone who can read about gene work over the last seven decades and do a little math.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 10:21:53 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 1:36:57 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:12:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:42:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 1:59:57 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 14:16 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 11:10:30 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2020 um 10:50 schrieb Andre Jute:
For a politician you're very poorly informed, Scharfie. The BBC
is like the National Enquirer, only on the Left. That you
slavishly follow the Beeb tells us a lot about your mental
capacities.
In the most recent UK elections, the Beeb must have done something
correct, given that the right accused them of being on the left
and the left accused them of being on the right.

The exception that proves the rule. It has to do with Corbyn being
the worst leader the Labour Party ever had (not within living
memory, but ever). Even the BBC reporters and editors could recognize
that. In addition, you should know that Boris, toffee accent and all,
is on the left of the Conservatives so he finds a little more favour
with the average Beeb editor than Mrs Thatcher did.

BS. The Beep has taken a "balanced view" (i.e. a middle ground between
Tories and Labour) all the time since the 1990's, only at that time,
Beep bashing was less popular than now.

The Beeb attacked Thatcher and Major from the left and Michael Foot and
Meil Kinnock from the right.

The BBC pendulum will swing further to the left now that Labour in
Sir Keir Starmer has a noticeably establishment figure as its Leader.
Who knows, by the next election I could be arguing that the Beeb is
to the left of any policy Starmer will support; past history supports
my forecast.

Please show me any sign demonstrating the Beeb being left of Blair,
Brown or similar; its brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer (one op-ed at the left might be
allowed if there was a similar op-ed at the right though).

You'll forgive me if I don't enter extended correspondence with a semi-detached German who has already tried to wield his Ph.D. like a club, and told us of his religious attachment unto death to Darwin Doctrine. It will do absolutely no good to argue with your German preconceptions, expressed in your hilarious belief that the BBC's "brief of 'balanced reporting' would forbid it from
being to the left of Keir Starmer". I have no time for bashing my head against immovable objects, like a German who believes that anglo institutions obey their marching orders because they *are* orders, and Germans would not dream of disobeying. But I'll make you a counter-offer: Prove to my satisfaction that the BBC faithfully executed "its brief of 'balanced reporting'" about global warming, and I'll reconsider explaining British politics and the BBC's contempt for balanced reporting to you. It still won't do any good, because you won't believe me and you don't have the wherewithal to change your mind, but you will have earned the right to waste some of my time.

Andre Jute
I often wonder why otherwise sophisticated people believe operating a keyboard qualifies them as polemicists.

We know the rate at which DNA can successfully mutate. We have also in 200 years or so since Darwin attempted to find a SINGLE new species and have been totally unable to do so. Theoretically if such a thing could happen there would be a species here or there on the edge of change to a new species but we haven't found on of any sort.

Consider, for every one successful change in a single pair in a strand of DNA there are 77,000 fatal errors. There are 3.3 Billion base pairs.

The speed of development from Homo Erectus to Sapiens was simply too fast for evolution to be in control. The time from the surviving mammals from the Age of Extinction to Homo Sapiens could require more time for evolution than the age of the Universe. Not to mention that Sol and its planetary system is a third generation star. This makes it absolutely impossible for evolution in the Darwinian sense to have brought about this world we know.

Disregarding you later points modern science does not agree that
modern man evolved from Homo Erectus. They are viewed as simply a
sub-species that was not successful.
--
cheers,

John B.

If it is true that Homo Erectus is an unsuccessful branch of Darwinian evolution and not our ancestor, that makes all Tom's points stronger still. Was that your intention, Slow Johnny? Are we about to discover that on your day off you visit the sick like a Christian gentleman -- and help little old ladies across the street, whether want to cross or not.

Andre Jute
Except for those steam-age PhDs still trying to catch up to the 20th century, the Cambrian Explosion killed Darwin stone dead for anyone who can read about gene work over the last seven decades and do a little math.

There is no direct ancestor to Homo Sapiens on the Darwinian Tree. Everything up to Homo Sapiens is a dead end. The trouble is that Homo Sapiens appears to have popped up in Asia, Asia Minor and Africa at the same time. Man, is that throwing a monkey wrench in the theory of evolution.

On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:00:49 -0700, cyclintom wrote:


There is no direct ancestor to Homo Sapiens on the Darwinian Tree.
Everything up to Homo Sapiens is a dead end. The trouble is that Homo
Sapiens appears to have popped up in Asia, Asia Minor and Africa at the
same time. Man, is that throwing a monkey wrench in the theory of
evolution.

Nope, it doesn't disprove the theory, but has encourage more searching,
which has found more branches. you really should keep up.