Wernher von Braun and Intelligent Design in the '70s
23 Jul 2010, 7:48 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can make no further comments.
Unfortunately that is both not true (since the word "can" refers to ability) and would nevertheless include the implication that it is for this subject alone even if you had used the word "wont" instead of the inaccurate word "can".
My wording is quite accurate. Over the course of my experience I have, for personal purposes, found it useful to create a scale of communicability. The low end of the scale is a doorknob. This represents a point of zero potential in commenting, no matter what the doorknob chooses to propose.The next step up is an apple. Apples are almost as unreachable as doorknobs but at least they are alive. I have tentatively accepted a banana as possibly a bit more attainable in conversation but I have had no real success here yet so it is still very theoretical. I use a cricket as my next point since I have discovered that chirping at crickets does evoke some kind of reliable response. From here we proceed up the scale through goldfish, sardines, chickadees, sparrows, telemarketers, seagulls, policemen, dogs or cats (which do equally well), theologians, and so forth through several types of humans. Of course, there are many empty spaces inbetween that I have not had the opportunity to fill but I do have some success with several types of humans. In the light of our recent conversation you place somewhere between a banana and a cricket and since crickets have been more responsive in general you have, so far, appeared to be more intelligent than a banana but I am willing to have doubts about how much more. I'll let you know where exactly you should be placed when I finally do get some coherent response form the banana. I appreciate your interest.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
23 Jul 2010, 9:56 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can make no further comments.
Unfortunately that is both not true (since the word "can" refers to ability) and would nevertheless include the implication that it is for this subject alone even if you had used the word "wont" instead of the inaccurate word "can".
My wording is quite accurate. Over the course of my experience I have, for personal purposes, found it useful to create a scale of communicability. The low end of the scale is a doorknob. This represents a point of zero potential in commenting, no matter what the doorknob chooses to propose.The next step up is an apple. Apples are almost as unreachable as doorknobs but at least they are alive. I have tentatively accepted a banana as possibly a bit more attainable in conversation but I have had no real success here yet so it is still very theoretical. I use a cricket as my next point since I have discovered that chirping at crickets does evoke some kind of reliable response. From here we proceed up the scale through goldfish, sardines, chickadees, sparrows, telemarketers, seagulls, policemen, dogs or cats (which do equally well), theologians, and so forth through several types of humans. Of course, there are many empty spaces inbetween that I have not had the opportunity to fill but I do have some success with several types of humans. In the light of our recent conversation you place somewhere between a banana and a cricket and since crickets have been more responsive in general you have, so far, appeared to be more intelligent than a banana but I am willing to have doubts about how much more. I'll let you know where exactly you should be placed when I finally do get some coherent response form the banana. I appreciate your interest.
When I post articles in response to people, it is usually when I would like to give them a response but am too tired to properly formulate one myself (that along with the general feeling of despair associated with the knowledge that all of my words will be scrutinized for opportunities of ridicule.) If you mean by "responsiveness" how much I agree with you, then you'll only find me to be responsive when there is something which we mutually agree upon. If your scale of "responsiveness" relates to how willing a person is to budge from what they already think, then consider where you would lie within your own scale.
23 Jul 2010, 10:29 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can make no further comments.
Unfortunately that is both not true (since the word "can" refers to ability) and would nevertheless include the implication that it is for this subject alone even if you had used the word "wont" instead of the inaccurate word "can".
My wording is quite accurate. Over the course of my experience I have, for personal purposes, found it useful to create a scale of communicability. The low end of the scale is a doorknob. This represents a point of zero potential in commenting, no matter what the doorknob chooses to propose.The next step up is an apple. Apples are almost as unreachable as doorknobs but at least they are alive. I have tentatively accepted a banana as possibly a bit more attainable in conversation but I have had no real success here yet so it is still very theoretical. I use a cricket as my next point since I have discovered that chirping at crickets does evoke some kind of reliable response. From here we proceed up the scale through goldfish, sardines, chickadees, sparrows, telemarketers, seagulls, policemen, dogs or cats (which do equally well), theologians, and so forth through several types of humans. Of course, there are many empty spaces inbetween that I have not had the opportunity to fill but I do have some success with several types of humans. In the light of our recent conversation you place somewhere between a banana and a cricket and since crickets have been more responsive in general you have, so far, appeared to be more intelligent than a banana but I am willing to have doubts about how much more. I'll let you know where exactly you should be placed when I finally do get some coherent response form the banana. I appreciate your interest.
When I post articles in response to people, it is usually when I would like to give them a response but am too tired to properly formulate one myself (that along with the general feeling of despair associated with the knowledge that all of my words will be scrutinized for opportunities of ridicule.) If you mean by "responsiveness" how much I agree with you, then you'll only find me to be responsive when there is something which we mutually agree upon. If your scale of "responsiveness" relates to how willing a person is to budge from what they already think, then consider where you would lie within your own scale.
Since I have no problems at all communicating with myself I am off scale. Please be assured my system is rather rough and the placement scalewise is only relative to the responses I receive. If my information is taken seriously and considered in the light of generally accepted understanding of the mechanics of how the world functions then my scale is responsive to that. When the responses I receive are so far out of rational consideration that they have no relevance to rational consideration the scale placement reflects that. This is, of course, a very personal evaluation and my past experience in our exchanges indicate my evaluations are totally rejected in your viewpoint so you certainly should feel no emotion as to my outlook since it is entirely worthless in your eyes. If it is any comfort, my evaluation of your opinions are very much in the same area as most of the business, financial and governmental people who are currently running the world.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
| People That Swear Make Better Friends & Are More Intelligent |
20 Mar 2024, 11:08 am |
