Messages From Charles Veitengruber
1 - 20 of 80

Re: Conspiracy Nonsense!
It sure does. It means that because it was a constitutional matter, it must have been religious oriented, i.e., a faith issue. The ruling thus would have been on the basis of whether the law infringed on the mixing of religious and state issues. Who won, BTW? Charlie

Re: Greenhouse Scam
Do you think that environmental science for the most part is a scam? I would be interested in more facts along these lines. We have been bombarded by environmental hysteria for quite some time, and I frankly am skeptical, but don't have the facts to disprove the "True Believers". Charles

Re: Bearing False Witness.
How can it be an "ism", and still be a science? That's what I thought, but the Moderator of this echo recently ruled differently, and so everybody's been reading these tired quotes for 2 years, so I'm told. I'm lucky. I've only been lurking here for a couple of months. Apparently, Laurie wants to debate like a high school debater, with endless quotes from notable authorities, not all of which appear to be in context. He also uses analogies, some

Re: Limbo
This "True Believer" is doing a good job showing us what kind of a person he is. Unfortunately, I don't get the UFO Echo, so I can't see first hand what kind of a job he's doing over there. Actually, I sympathize with this situation, and I'll be very anxious to see how it works out. Charles

Re: Bearing False Witness.
How would you define "science", to include the kind of stuff we've been getting from the creationists? You're right. "Faith" does cover too large a ground. It can mean too many different things to too many different people. Scientists, in fact, have "faith" that the facts they deal with are correct because somebody else has already proved them (at least to the satisfaction of most of their fellow scientists). IOW, they don't have to prove them over and over again.

Re: Greenhouse Scam
If CO2 is heavier than air, and mixes so well (actually the percentage of CO2 is pretty low), does it follow that CFCs also being heavier than air, would also mix just as well? It's logical to assume that the CFC content of air would be even less than that of CO2. If so, how does CO2 adversely affect the ozone layer? And why is there a hole in it, as you say, and the layer is not universally affected

Re: Freud Debunked 1/4
What do you mean by Economic Rationalism? Charles

Re: Snowden Case 1/2
What is your purpose in posting this article? Charles

Re: Syllogism
Hi Langston, Did Langston Goldfinch really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 24 Jan 98? I should probably bow to your superior experience and intelligence in this case, but let me try again. You have defined "some" as "at least one". I usually use "some" as meaning part of a larger group. I guess one would fit that category, so that's okay. However, unless you use "some" to mean "all" in statement #3 (which we both agree is not logically

Re: Syllogism
Hi Terry, Did Terry Smith really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 25 Jan 98? No, I don't really know that to be a fact, but I'll accede to your judgment, pending further investigation. Remember, this is a little new to me. The 100% I readily concede as possible, and I DO recognize that the descriptive nouns are merely interchangeable. "Some" is the word I've had problems with, and I hope to investigate this further. Thanks for the help. Charles

Re: Syllogism
Hi Langston, Did Langston Goldfinch really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 27 Jan 98? Right. I'll do that. I also had a rude awakening a few years back, when I found out that simple Basic allowed "x" to be "x 1". The basic problem I have seems to be in the definition of the word "some". According to how it is used in logic, as you say, your statement is correct. Right. Didn't I say that? I should

Re: Syllogism
Hi Langston, Did Langston Goldfinch really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 30 Jan 98? Well, I think that mathematical logic works a little differently. The easiest thing to do is to question the first premise. In fact, isn't it usually wise to question the use of "all" in any worded syllogism? Yet, by showing Einstein smoking a pipe in an ad implies the relationship between smoking a pipe and intelligence, even though it is not stated. For years, they

Re: Syllogism
Hi Langston, Did Langston Goldfinch really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 01 Feb 98? I may have misspoke. It may not be the logic itself which is different. My math is somewhat rusty, but let me try to explain. The symbols can stand for anything or nothing, as you say. They don't really stand for "some", except as part of a greater whole. x all the joggers y all the lawyers x-y all the joggers who

Re: Syllogism
Hi Langston, Did Langston Goldfinch really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 04 Feb 98? Right. I am sure you are right. My math experience may not go high enough for me to have seen a symbol for "some". "E", as I recall, stood for something else, usually involving very high numbers. I recall seeing a summation symbol, which looked a little like an "E", a large one, which essentially meant the summation of the various expressions following it. If

Re: Scar Tissue
They call it "referred pain". I don't know any more about it or why it happens, but it can happen anywhere on the body, just about. My best suggestion is to try a search for "referred pain", in books or on the Web. I don't have Web access. Hope this helps. Charles

Re: Scar Tissue
Hi Fred, Did Fredric Rice really say something to Charles Veitengruber, on 20 Feb 98? You're welcome. I wouldn't know, except that on 2 separate occasions, with 2 different doctors, for 2 different complaints, the pain was not where you would have expected it to be, and each doctor called it "referred pain". It sounds too simple, like there should be a fancier name for it, but I have never heard of one. It's an interesting phenomenon. If you find

Re: Scar Tissue
Wow! That's an extreme example. How in the world were they able to diagnose appenidicitis from a hurting elbow? You know, that brings to mind something else. Sometimes, people will stress another part of the body in attempt to ease the pain they feel. They may do this without knowing they are doing it. On the same level? How is an elbow on the same level as an appendix? Oh, you mean the degree of pain. IOW, the degree of

Re: Scar Tissue
I wonder how the doctor thought to do that? Did they do blood tests for elevated white cell counts? Was this true referred pain in the elbow, or did she perhaps subconsciously stress it because of the pain she should have felt in the abdomen? No, no. I'm not trying to say ALL referred pain is stressed as above, just that sometimes it will manifest itself that way. Have you ever had some pain and to take your mind off

Re: Scar Tissue
Hmmm. I didn't always do that consciously knowing I was doing it. It was a matter of being in chronic pain, and wanting to do things, and just a mechanism of dealing with the chronic pain so I could. I'm not sure how it relates to acute pain. Anyways, I believe it would need to be studied, provided all the proper parameters for the study are considered. Hopefully, I won't have a whole lot of chronic pain in the future,

Re: Scar Tissue
I usually ignore it until the pain is consistent and strong enough to get my attention. So, it's in that period of ignoring it that I subconsciously relocate the pain. I think that in dealing with pain, everybody is different. I know that my awareness varies. Ain't that the truth. My wife can't tolerate any kind of pain. Charles