BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:36 PM

What do you mean, Greg, "now"?

Musket - gris ou noir?

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:56 PM

Noir. Do I look like a bird in a nightclub? Mind you, a crisp cold gris has its place, I'll grant you that.




pete. You might reflect on that when medical science has to intervene where your imaginary friend fails you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 07:54 PM

Gris has no place in our house. When it's on offer at Tessies, get yerself some Ocean Edge Marlborough sauvignon blanc 2013. Failing that, and with a deficiency of Prosecco weather, Torres Vina Sol is our default white.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:14 PM

Steve, is a young Musket a Muscadet?

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:03 AM

We do like many of the Marlborough sauvs and a wine club we are in has some crackers. Interestingly when we visited a few of the wineries there, one particular good one was cheaper at Tesco than in their gift shop! (Oyster Bay.) By coincidence, the vineyards around the Marlborough area of the South Island can squeeze out some cracking pinot noir.

Despite my moans that USA gave us chicken in a bucket and spray on cheese, Oregon and California produce the best pinots in my book.

A young Musket is like a young pinotage. Full of flavour from the outset yet gets better with age. Keeps a young bouquet though.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:01 PM

Ah, perpetually fruity, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:55 PM

No constructive denials then !

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 04:59 PM

Only your continuing denial of rality, pete. But I'd hardly call that constuctive.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 12:28 AM

A man talking about his own bouquet. Now I see that a statement can be disturbing and uninteresting at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:00 AM

No Jack. It just means a strong nose. I use mine for sniffing out bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:44 AM

Out of interest it takes a Canadian in The USA to dismiss an Oxford professor of evolutionary biology as pseudointellectual. I always assumed "intellectual" to have been in the job description.

Ruddy colonies. Couldn't recognise a fart in an arsehole shop.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 09:06 PM

Don't forget, Swansea, that I kept a professional farter on my stage crew just for that all-important political gig, the Annual Christmas Party in front of HM at Windsor. A good leap and a fart in the top man's face should be an essential ritual of every Party Congress. One year, ole Roly managed a triple Salko, forgot he'd had a currie the ight beforehand, and sprayed the walls instead. Now, you don't get much more pseudointellectual than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM

Sounds like any other political event outcome to me.
🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:57 AM

Actually, the thing about Professors is that they start as Undergrads learning something about the broad field of their discipline. As Doctors, they become such narrowly-focused specialists in one subject they know everything about nothing, and suddenly get tenure, which requires them to reverse the process, to magically obtain a balanced overview of every speciality in the domain. Masters candidates get a lecture telling them they're no longer being spoonfed, but have to home in on what drives them, but nothing does the opposite when Doctors become Profs. The result, particularly in Oxford, is that they get a messianic complex, and this is how it shows. My role, in the Warburg, is that of Caesar's slave, "Remember, learned Prof, that thou too art human".

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:10 AM

Some of us missed the first stage..

It must be galling to have your research rubbished by ignorance and have idiots say the ignorant ones have a valid opinion. I'd be finding my knuckle dusters too..

Prof Hawking gets, according to a recent documentary about his life, over a thousand letters and emails a day from religious bods questioning his life work. Whilst Dawkins gets angry though and shouts that the emperor has no clothes, he just published a paper demonstrating how the big bang cannot have been a result of a prior decision, effectively ruling a god concept out of the running.

Now that's style...

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:40 AM

I ref back, yet again, to that old thread of mine which ran·&·ran, "What Went Big Bang?"

No answer yet.

Till then...

small pop!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 07:37 AM

Nothing went big bang.

Not my field but a bang presupposes not having a bang before it, and as time began within what we refer to as the big bang, nothing actually banged as such, as you would have to be outside of it in order for it to each you, and by logic, nothing, not even time was outside of it.

Big Bang is as good a phrase to use to describe the singularity though for those of us like me & thee who need crayons to express ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 07:56 AM

Follow the money 

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

OK then, Ian. If no Big Bang, but you'd rather call it 'The Singularity' --

then "Singularity" of what?

Like I said before

Bak2 ▢·1

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:13 PM

...of a naturalistic miracle maybe !

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 04:24 PM

The miracle in your case being that it could be caused when time itself did not exist when causality, a key ingredient of which is time, was needed.

Sorry but if Prof Hawking is on the correct motorway, you don't need to find God at the road end because the God concept is superfluous and unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:52 PM

Jaysus, here we go. Michael and pete (bless) revelling in their ignorance. Taking pride. Do your research, chappies, do your research. Well not you, pete. You can just bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 07:10 AM

The existence of heavy elements argues the Big Bang is only the short-term expression of a longer-term cyclical universe. What happens, for example, when the universe is so spread out nothing else is in contact with anything else. Does the vacuum create a singularity by stressing subatomic particles?
The problem is that the age of our solar system is a sizeable proportion of the estimated age of the universe. There are huge amounts of heavy elements which are supposed to have been created by fusion in the centre of stars, but no time for the stars to have existed to make them. Did a Black Hole explode, perhaps? I don't know, but the story remains inconsistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:34 AM

Lots of interesting conundrums and fascinating to read of how we try to find answers to such onservations.

Makes religious solutions so small, insignificant and limiting. Reality is far richer than their fantasy, which is odd considering that your imagination should have no limits. Doesn't say much about the minds of those who perpetuate ancient stories as being more.

I always thought it odd that Bach dedicated his work to his God. He was far more infinite in his work than his God could ever be. Those cadences could still be playing out when our descendants have put the bible in the next hall to Egyptian mythology in the museum.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:58 AM

""onservations""

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 10:03 AM

Thanks for your observation I am humbled.

I am also of sausage fingers and iPhone.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:12 PM

Bach, like Michelangelo and many another, had to make a living. I doubt whether they were thinking elevated Godly stuff whilst they were creating their greatest works. What they said once they'd done them is another matter, though it was always about earning a crust.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudointellectual Smackdown!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

False dichotomy I suspect, Steve. It's not an either/or get inspired/earn a living. They were almost certainly æsthetically-inspired & nitty-gritty-concentrating to earn an honest living simultaneously: not necessarily in equal proportions, which would have been a variable. And other considerations would have obtruded, like Michlangelo's worries about his physical safety on top of that scaffolding.

But considerations both of feeding the family & inspiring the faithful would have co-existed thruout. The word 'doublethink' might have been brilliantly invented by Orwell; but nor the concept.

≈M≈