Re: [Fractint] FOTD 08-08-02 (Odd Mandelbrot [5])
At 05:11 PM 8/10/02 +1200, Morgan Owens wrote:
At 03:02 10/08/2002, John Wilson wrote:
Whoah! That's a real blow below the belt. I am anxiously awaiting replies from the mathematicians, but shouldn't this be in the Philofractal list?.
John W.
Perhaps, but Jim would probably complain that it's not "irrationally mystical" enough. It's the Philofractal list after all, not the "scientifractal" one.
This topic *should* be on the philofractal list, but I suspect that Morgan no longer subscribes to that list. Can't take irrationality and mysticism, I assume. Jim M.
It's no good, I give in. I promised myself "no more subscribing to lists", but I've succumbed to the off topic banter and 'irrational and mystical' was the last straw. Please folks, how do I subscribe to the philofractal list. Chris. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Muth" <jamth@mindspring.com> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 08-08-02 (Odd Mandelbrot [5])
At 05:11 PM 8/10/02 +1200, Morgan Owens wrote:
At 03:02 10/08/2002, John Wilson wrote:
Whoah! That's a real blow below the belt. I am anxiously awaiting replies from the mathematicians, but shouldn't this be in the Philofractal list?.
John W.
Perhaps, but Jim would probably complain that it's not "irrationally mystical" enough. It's the Philofractal list after all, not the "scientifractal" one.
This topic *should* be on the philofractal list, but I suspect that Morgan no longer subscribes to that list. Can't take irrationality and mysticism, I assume.
Jim M.
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Chris Curnow wrote:
Please folks, how do I subscribe to the philofractal list.
To unsubscribe, mailto:philofractal-subscribe@lists.fractalus.com For additional commands, mailto:philofractal-help@lists.fractalus.com Sincerely, P.N.L. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go
At 01:04 11/08/2002, Jim Muth wrote:
At 05:11 PM 8/10/02 +1200, Morgan Owens wrote:
At 03:02 10/08/2002, John Wilson wrote:
Whoah! That's a real blow below the belt. I am anxiously awaiting replies from the mathematicians, but shouldn't this be in the Philofractal list?.
John W.
Perhaps, but Jim would probably complain that it's not "irrationally mystical" enough. It's the Philofractal list after all, not the "scientifractal" one.
This topic *should* be on the philofractal list, but I suspect that Morgan no longer subscribes to that list. Can't take irrationality and mysticism, I assume.
Well, let's put it this way: if the reason put about why physicists don't accept with great joy the unsubstantiated say-so of a Baltimore artisan is because they're too chicken ("maybe ... serious scientists would never tackle the problem for fear of being labelled soft on mysticism."), then I have to say I left the Philofractal list to get away from such petty dross. It's a shame you can't write two emails instead of one more often. Morgan L. Owens "You assume way too much. That's part of your problem."
Now that seems unnecessarily unpleasant- lots of physicists and scientists in general go to church on Sunday and seem to accept it all the same as everyone else, so I don't see why a discussion of the relationship between science and belief is so terribly unscientific. And "artisan"- is that like an insult? why you... you... you pathetic little Artisan! sorry for the off-topic post. It's ok, I'm just a practitioner. Kathy Roth "Morgan L. Owens" wrote:
Well, let's put it this way: if the reason put about why physicists don't accept with great joy the unsubstantiated say-so of a Baltimore artisan is because they're too chicken ("maybe ... serious scientists would never tackle the problem for fear of being labelled soft on mysticism."), then I have to say I left the Philofractal list to get away from such petty dross.
At 17:49 11/08/2002, Kathy Roth wrote:
Now that seems unnecessarily unpleasant- lots of physicists and scientists in general go to church on Sunday and seem to accept it all the same as everyone else, so I don't see why a discussion of the relationship between science and belief is so terribly unscientific. And "artisan"- is that like an insult? why you... you... you pathetic little Artisan! sorry for the off-topic post. It's ok, I'm just a practitioner. Kathy Roth I'm not the one who said there was a conflict. I'm the one who keeps pointing out the narrowness of the views of those who insist on it. ('Scuse me - my sphygmomanometer is beeping...) Personally, I think it's more likely that one person is mistaken than that there is a conspiracy of cowardice. Especially when that person (yes, Jim Muth) has repeatedly stated that he lacks the intellectual and critical faculties to understand what he holds forth on so often.
And because that is so off-topic, I'm going to write another less off-topic post just for a change of mood. Actually, I wrote it earlier today, but held it over. Morgan L. Owens "http://www.unisci.com/science2.shtml"
participants (5)
-
Chris Curnow -
Jim Muth -
Kathy Roth -
Morgan L. Owens -
Paul N. Lee