|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Paul F. Dietz wrote: L. Merk wrote: So saying that all autistics do not want to explore is a generalization that is not true. But *no one* made that claim. What experts point out is that many *severe* autistics manifestly lack a drive to explore. The point: it's *not* normal to lack that drive. You see, 'L.', what you're doing in this thread is pulling a fast one with definitions. You use different ones depending on what you're trying to show. If you want to show that (just about everyone) has a drive to 'explore', you use a very broad definition. But then when you want to argue that space exploration is necessary, or that people who don't feel driven to visit Mars are autistic, you use a very narrow definition. Otherwise, why don't all those innumerable opportunities for exploration (sic) in everyday life, the ones used to show we're all explorers (sic), serve to satisfy that putative drive? Paul GOOD SHOW! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-06-06, Rand Simberg wrote:
Do you have a credible cite for that slander? Isn't it libel? (and which charge are you referring to? That's unclear, when it occurs on Usenet. I don't think there have been any rulings on it. Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of permanence not form, IIRC. (Slander is often thought of in this context because of the similarity of a Usenet discussion to a verbal conversation, but a verbal conversation on a radio programme would likely be classed as libellous not slanderous) -- -Andrew Gray |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-06-09, Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of permanence not form, IIRC. Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser charge... This is where the joy of Usenet comes in. Sue him in a foreign court with more plaintiff-friendly standards - after all, it's been published in their jurisdiction, as far as they're concerned... ;-) -- -Andrew Gray |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Paul F. Dietz wrote: Nothing like a stress test to find defect(ive)s. Paul Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to explore. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Jun 2005 17:46:20 -0700, "L. Merk" wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote: Nothing like a stress test to find defect(ive)s. Paul Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to explore. And how much exploring have you done in the last month? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On 2005-06-06, Rand Simberg wrote: Do you have a credible cite for that slander? Isn't it libel? (and which charge are you referring to? That's unclear, when it occurs on Usenet. I don't think there have been any rulings on it. Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of permanence not form, IIRC. Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser charge... |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
L. Merk wrote:
Funny, but mainstream psychiatry says that people like *you* are the defectives. It's not psychologically normal to lack a strong drive to explore. Which of your multiple definitions are you using here? Paul |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Jun 2005 00:27:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On 2005-06-09, Rand Simberg wrote: On 8 Jun 2005 23:49:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Almost certainly libel; the distinction in most jurisdictions is one of permanence not form, IIRC. Could be, but I'd probably have a more winnable case with a lesser charge... This is where the joy of Usenet comes in. Sue him in a foreign court with more plaintiff-friendly standards - after all, it's been published in their jurisdiction, as far as they're concerned... ;-) But the costs of litigation are higher (being in a foreign land,and whatnot) and I seriously doubt that he's got deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile, since there's no evidence that he even has a job... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the drive to explore | [email protected] | Policy | 662 | July 13th 05 12:19 AM |
Safe space habitat Was:the drive to explore | Earl Colby Pottinger | Policy | 78 | July 10th 05 11:30 AM |
Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 8, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 04 05:13 PM |
Problems with Celestron 11" Ultima clock drive | Charles Burgess | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 20th 04 11:51 PM |
Spirit Ready to Drive Onto Mars Surface | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 04:09 PM |