On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, James W wrote:
>
> lol, thanks. :) Most people I'm sure get frustrated with the answers
> and bow out quickly. It doesn't look good for them either, especially
> if they were really set to prove their point. :P I suppose it shows
> the level to how objective they are to logic. Regardless, I've enjoyed
> our correspondance as you have sound logic, and a sense of humor to
> boot. :)
As my friend Fred (Fourth Apostle) says, lately I can be such an ass!
I think his intolerance is rubbing off on me, he seems to have knack for that.
> True. It is difficult, as a a person who believes God to completely
> seperate one area from the other. There are times it does prevent me
> from advancement toward certain areas I really wanted to pursue. I
> suppose it only makes it more of a challenge for me.
You have a choice, Science or mysticism, you can't have it both ways.
Trying will make you both a poor Scientist as well as a poor mystic! Given
that you can't prove mysticism "in a court of law" but you can Science, I
propose that Science is the truth, and all forms of shamenry are lies.
> However, I won't
> say my efficiency does not suffer because of my beliefs sometimes.
If you believe gods effect natural occurrences, you are an ineffective
Scientist. God is not part of any equation, except in the minds of the stupid.
> MOST times, I do not put religious connotations of any sort toward
> active works of science. With creation and origin, I have a tendency
> to do so because of the big question mark that hangs above it still.
I reiterate, doctors laughed when it was proposed that tiny little
"bugs" could make a BIG MAN sick! Yet this is true, and today we don't laugh.
Just live with the unknowns, as I do. Just accept that we know what we have
learned, and that we have SO MUCH more to learn! Never attribute to gods that
which is not yet understood fully, that is just BAD SCIENCE!
> > There you go again, attributing that which you are unable to
> >comprehend, or unwilling to explore, to mythical gods!
>
> It's difficult, at least for me, as I am torn between my love for
> science, and my love for God. My entire life I was brought up to know
> both as existant truths. Does this seem conflicting? Very! But I'm
> sure by the time my body expires, and my work is completed as best I
> could do it, I will have a very definitive yes or no answer.
There is nothing to indicate the existence of gods. If you are torn
between your love of science and you crutch (religion), please give one of them
up. Either become a 100% worthless theist, or a 100% valuable Scientist, take
your pick, because you can't just sit on the fence, you need to move in one
direction or the other. As you stand, you are completely incapacitated.
> > If there was a god, and he truly loved us, why would he create disease
> >germs, disease viruses (aids, smallpox, polio) which has harmed MANY! Why
> >would god create intestinal worms (parasites)?
>
> My belief on this is, that if our enviroment is a controlled
> experiment for beings we cannot yet see or prove, illness + despair
> may be behavior control variables to use for analysis.
That's almost as simplistic as "god made everything". Look to
evolution for your answer. We kill and eat chickens, pigs, or cattle. We kill
and eat plants. Bacteria kills and eats US! That's just how life works!
> This adds many
> more unknowns to the existing questions previously unanswered for the
> purpose of life itself.
Life has no purpose, it just is. If you want a purpose in life, it's
up to you to find one (for yourself). As I say in my treatise, the meaning to
life is the same as the meaning of a glass of water. There IS no meaning!
> People still cannot prove that a big bang
> occured, and if it did, who may have heard it? (bang! lol).
Sound does not propagate through space. Strong evidence suggests that
the big bang did occur, just as before man invented the electron microscope,
strong evidence suggested the construct of atoms, and those who devised those
constructs were nearly 100% accurate. Without eyes, they were able to see!
> Though
> based more upon science we have proven, science we know to be
> true...even Darwinism much less evolution itself does not explain
> exactly how, and why, we were created.
It explains how we came to be. We were NOT created, and there is no
reason WHY we are here, we just are!
> It presents objective ideas,
> good stuff for thesis statements even...but like any belief it does
> not answer everything logically.
Yes, it does. You need to study evolution, it's very logical.
> One of the questions I have often wondered is where do the quarks come
> from that make up atoms?
They are matter, they come from energy, coalesced energy. That's all
we know so far, I wish I had more to offer, but we are not yet learned enough.
> The results released from MIT upon this
> subject didn't seem to be carried further...either their funding was
> cut, or some other reason existed as to why they did not pursue it.
They went as far as their hardware would allow. They need a bigger
supercollider to go any farther, and that will take billions of dollars.
> Have you heard any more after the late 70's/early 80's on their
> experiments with fractional pieces of atoms? How small can structures
> be?
We don't yet know, but theoretically, infinite.
> What is the finite level of what seems to be infinite scaled
> structures? So many questions to answer...just makes me itch to know
> them now.
You _can_ know much, but you will never know all. Not knowing
frustrates even me, but I'm learning to live with it. But as with you, it's
hard for me, very hard to not know. I want to know everything, but that is an
impracticality, one that we can only slowly overcome.
> Is that not the most frustrating thing? To know there is an answer but
> not have it yet???
Totally frustrating. However, instead of appeasing myself with lies, I
accept the absence of answers instead. That makes me a GOOD Scientist.
> >My measured IQ is 232 (Cattell) so there
> >is very little that seems (or is) incomprehensible to me.
>
> Lol. Well, I have taken several IQ tests just to see how I would fare.
> All of them seemed to have different biases they were particular to;
> either abstract mathematics, mechanical reasoning, algebraic logic,
> verbal skills, or memory questions are just a few of a myriad of known
> areas they test on. Test scores for me, varied greatly. Of the 8 tests
> I had tried, all of them were either very high, or very low. None of
> them seemed to be average to any degree. One test for example, had a
> maximum of 180 pts. Another, a maximum of 327 pts. Yet another still
> had a max. of 516. I scored nearly 168 out of 180 with the first test.
> Was quite pleased. Scored 236 out of 327 with the second. Not pleased.
> Scored 486 out of 516 on the third. With the fourth, which only had
> 100 pts. maximum, I only scored 51! I was like WTF! I suppose the only
> real way to measure IQ tests correctly would be to give several of
> them, then provide the average of all test scores combined to give a
> more reliable figure.
My Stanford-Binet score is 188 (four points below the smartest man in
the United States). The Cattell test is the only one accepted for higher
intelligence quotients. I'm not sure what tests you are ascribing to above.
> > Did you experience a self-induced hypnotic event, invoked at a period
> >of great stress in your life, or perhaps a misfiring in your brain (schizotypal
> >event) which is the basis for your religious beLIEfs?
>
> If I were able to tell you honestly, if this was the case, then I
> would not waste anyone's time presenting what I believe. :D
Charley Manson really did believe god was telling him to kill people
(the voice in his head). Moses (in the bible) heard voices in his head telling
him to kill people and rape virgin girls. He too was obviously schizophrenic.
If you want my assessment, without having the full facts, I'd say you
probably had a schizoid or schizotypal event. It wasn't real, only imagined.
> >When you "drop acid" and
> >"see god" is that really god or just a hallucination? When you have a
> >spontaneous hallucination, caused by disease or stress, is that somehow real?
>
> That's a fair question. I really feel there's a lot of people who play
> with drugs who shouldn't so they may 'experience God'. This is totally
> different from my own experiences. I have, since I was a young child,
> rejected drugs, alchohol, and most other known elements which were
> clearly harmful to my well being.
If you had experienced LSD, perhaps you wouldn't mistake a schizotypal
event with reality. :o) Drugs _can_ be highly enlightening!
> I've given up television and movies
> entirely too, as my work is too important to be distracted by nonsense
> like that.
I haven't. I enjoy watching a movie now and again. :o)
> It is safe to say that those people who do use drugs to see
> things, etc. do actually believe what they've seen. For me it wasn't
> drug related. I cannot prove or disprove it was a neuron misfire
> either.
Everything suggests that this was true. A schizotypal event. If they
happen often, and "god goes away" with treatment using antipsychotic drugs,
then they were all just misfirings in the brain, purely a misinterpretation.
> Today's provisions for proof are crude. Look how hard it is to
> prove the existance of or recreate just one unit of anti-matter! How
> much harder it is to try and prove the unknown...
It is hard to make anti-matter. Hard, but not impossible. Detecting
gods has been absolutely impossible. Supposition, gods must not exist.
> > Here on antichrist dot net, my friend David, an untreated schizophrenic,
> >used to talk about his special interpretations of the bible. It was unique,
> >but not at all unlike the interpretations of OTHER schizophrenics. :o)
>
> lol..:P I know, there are far too many insane people who use religion
> as a crutch simply because they cannot or will not understand that as
> strongly as they believe there is a God to be proven, there is a
> scientist willing to disprove their belief. This is something most
> religious people cannot handle due to their emotion over logic, and
> probably one possible reason people do not wish to write further on
> the subject.
Most schizophrenics write huge religious tutorials. Example is my
friend David's last thesis. http://www.antichrist.net/david.html As real as
all this was to him, it is unreal to the rest of us, but if we had going on in
OUR minds what went on in his, probably we'd be right in there with him.
> > As a Scientist, I don't have beLIEfs, I have KNOWLEDGE. I don't say "I
> >believe", I either say "I know" or "I do not know". Anything else, and I am
> >not a Scientist, I am a shamen.
>
> Or a Rabbi? LMFAO...Christians are not always with it, a lot of them
> are hypocrates too. But if not for the Jews Christianity would not
> exist.
Christianity was invented to counter judaism, too many slaves were
becoming jews, and once a jew, refused to be slaves anymore, even upon severe
torture. Ergo, christianity was the only solution, a strap-on "new testament"
to supplant the old, and thwart the indoctrination by the jews.
> I see them as a bigger threat than Christians because popular
> Christianity is based upon Judiastic stories to usher their control of
> people who will believe them.
Then you do understand the reason christianity and jesus was invented.
> > This is what makes you a defective Scientist. I don't mean to offend
> >you, but if you continue to cling on to myths created in lieu of Science at the
> >dawn of civilization, then you are doomed to be an inadequate Scientist.
>
> I know it isn't logical to substitute religious belief for unknowns of
> current formulas, just very difficult not to. I suppose it is a
> personal as well as a professional challenge to be met. I will rise
> above any situation I can to prove or disprove it ultimately. Just a
> matter of time.
You are weak. Exercise your mind and become strong, like me. :o)
> > Ok, reproduce god. Write the equations so that I too may reproduce god
> >in my laboratory. If you fail to be able to do that, god is not real.
>
> Again, are we to measure the unknown variables with tools that may not
> apply? How do we know that God CAN be measured with our existant
> technology?
How do we now know the "ether" does not exist (by your logic)? Again I
stress, you are being a bad Scientist. Stoppit! :o) People like you caused
the polywater scare of the 1950's. Bad Science is DEstructive!
> Just as the ancient people who believed myths of
> gods/goddesses, we could just as well as scientists tell ourselves
> that God does not exist only because we do not yet have the capability
> to prove he does. We would have to know of God to be able to know how
> to accurately measure or reproduce the proof of Him for others to
> witness.
As stated above, we didn't have the means to visualize the atom, yet we
were able to fathom the construct WAY before we were technologically advanced
enough to verify this theory. Applied to theology, Science disproves gods.
Since the period where mankind has recorded history, there have been over five
thousand different gods, created by even more different civilizations all over
the world. Only one or two are accepted as true today, yet I go farther and
use logic to suggest that they are all false. Can't you see that logic?
> Sir Isaac Newton knew well the prism could seperate focused
> light, but did he know his work would be used to develop laser rods,
> for fiber optics, or for any other methods? Hardly. If we tried to
> prove to Newton a laser would be possible, much less fiber optic
> transfer after computers were explained, would he say he rejects it
> simply because there is no way to prove seperated light could be made
> coherent, combined with superheated gas, and fired toward a target?
How do you know what Newton would or would not accept? Were I
describing excited atoms, and the resultant stimulated photonic emissions and
their properties, he'd probably accept it for experimentation.
> Would he even believe us that the laser beam *would not be visible*???
> With his technology he would give us a most emphatic no, call us
> fanatics, then tell us why, based upon his known results, why it would
> not work.
Every indication shows Newton was a good Scientist (like me). Prove
your point, and he would accept it. Invisible IR radiation can be shown with a
thermometer, something they did have back then. ;o) Two thermometers side by
side, an IR laser on one, and not on the other would show the "invisible".
> Because not even microlithography was invented, his very
> realization of a computer might be rejected! We have to consider,
> based upon history and man's folly, both scientifically as well as
> religiously, that often a man is only capable of what he knows or has
> to work with; nothing more.
You are starting to sound more and more to me like a well read theist,
nothing you say suggests the mind set of a true Scientist.
> >It's as
> >simple as that, and as a Scientist you KNOW that I am correct! There are
> >millions of people who believe in paranormal phenomenon, but until one of them
> >can reproduce such events in a controlled situation, it is not true Science.
>
> That's true. There's all types of quacks who like to say 'ooh! I saw a
> ghost'...but turns out it was a reflection of light from a mirror, or
> a very cruel trick played by someone with the right idea of how to
> scare someone.
Same is true of gods (aka holy ghosts) my friend.
> > Then why can't you simply say as I do, "we do not everything about the
> >origins of the universe".
>
> We do not know everything about the origins of the universe. Until we
> do, I cannot rule out the existance of God.
We do not know everything about medicine, until we do, I can not rule
out the existence of voodoo spirits, and the need for chants and spells.
That's roughly what you just said, twisted to a way to make you laugh. Laugh
at your own god, because it's JUST as not real as voodoo spirits!
> We would really need the
> right tools for this job to rove it James. Just as Newton didn't have
> the tools or the knowledge or the experience to build a working
> rubidium laser, we ourselves do not yet have the tools to accurately
> rule out the fact our entire universe is a controlled experiment
> created for a specific reason by a scientist who does not conform to
> the laws of physics or laws of matter/energy/space/time.
I am not aware of, nor could I find reference to a "rubidium" laser,
did you mean neodymium? Rubidium is used in laser filters however.
Now to counter your claims, yes we do now have the tools to create the
tools to prove or disprove gods. We have done it. Gods are not real! Gods
were invented at the dawn of civilization by drooling backward fools, yet we
believe those stories as truth, even to this day, why? Why did god(s) only
appear to those people to prove themselves, and fail to appear today?
Summation, they were untreated schizophrenics, and gods are a lie.
> >Maybe we're just lazy and always take the easy way out. Gods are
> >easy, SCIENCE IS HARD! You don't have to work at god, you DO at Science.
>
> I won't even say for a second that many people select God simply
> because they want to believe only...and say it is true. Many of these
> people have no basis or comprehension of the scientific method or what
> it entails. If they did, many of them would be distracted or not even
> care for it as we do (It's really sad too, because if they only knew
> what they were missing!). People sometimes have a lead or idea to
> actively know of God. Others simply use him as a crutch. The people
> who use him as a crutch are usually the same people who hypocritically
> preach to others yet have not lived by the examples they expect others
> to follow.
Good reasons for you to become an atheist! ;o)
> > Nobody has been able to prove even slightly that there are divine
> >origins to anything in the Universe. Conversely, there is MUCH to disprove the
> >Universe originated by the will of some deity.
>
> It may have not been created by some deity at all. It may have been
> created from the process of a group of deities, from one deity, or
> none at all. We have yet to find out! :D
None at all seems like the most likely scenario. There is much to
indicate gods are not real, nothing to indicate that gods ARE real.
> > Let me raise one skeptical point here. If the ancients, the people who
> >invented the god(s) you pray to, were so smart about knowing god(s) exist, why
> >were they so DUMB about everything else? Hypothesis; they were dumb about
> >EVERYTHING, including the existence of gods. How's that for ya! :o)
>
> lol! Well granted, jews say they can heal flesh wounds if they eat the
> excrement of White dogs, or create a potion of dung, dirt, plus sweet
> honey after it is collected from the shadows of outdoor toilets.
If you eat the dung of white dogs that had eaten a lot of antibiotics,
you betcha! This jewish example is bad medicine, but it kinda hints to what
was to come, the use of actual alkaloids and salts to treat illness (medicine).
As you can see, the jews control nearly 100% of what we see and what we
know, so in the end, they do dominate over us, even getting us to fight their
wars for them in the middle east. I'd say that judiasm is a far greater threat
to the free White man than christianity or any other religion.
> This
> is BULLS*IT! hahaha, but, maybe it's because these people were so damn
> lost that God could not turn them lose for the experiment yet. I mean,
> if the rat starts to naw on himself rather than the cheese for food,
> you as the scientist have to figure out what the hell is wrong with
> that crazy rat, then figure out why he has no desire for the cheese.
> If the experiment requires the rat to actually get to the cheese to
> perform the experiment then the scientist must do what is necessary to
> see that those ends are met and carried out properly.
No you DO NOT! You emphatically DO NOT! You describe BAD SCIENCE!
Stoppit! :o( What you do is set up 50 or 100 experiments, if one or two chew
off their own limbs, they are removed from the equation, and we go with the
outcome of the majority of the experiments. If one person dies taking an
experimental drug, and 1000 do not, they still license the use of that drug!
Man, you sure are a theist first, and a logical thinker last, that's for sure.
> > Magnetism can be reproduced in the lab, I can show you how. Gods can
> >not be reproduced in the lab, you are unable to show me how. Your parallels to
> >a flower petal and a jelly bean are examples of BAD SCIENCE since they are
> >irrelevant, and not at all related to magnetism.
>
> It was more a figuretive comment than a scientific comparison. The
> flower petal/jelly bean example was just to propose how impossible it
> would be to use inadequate tools such as those to prove or disprove
> something else.
Geez man, GET THE RIGHT TOOLS OR MAKE THEM! Crap! You keep arguing
circular logic, try to focus, man! Put down the crack pipe and focus! ;o)
> > In _EVERY_ case where gods were once believed to influence nature, and
> >where Science has supplanted that myth with known, reproducible fact, there has
> >NEVER been any god included in the equation, NEVER! Since in the areas where
> >we DO understand, there is no influence by gods, extrapolate that in the areas
> >where we do NOT yet understand, there will be no influence by gods. This my
> >friend is why I consider myself to be a REAL Scientist. I think logically.
>
> Yes, you do. And it's refreshing to speak with someone who does!
I wish I could say the same for you. I'm frustrated talking to you
because you travel in a circle, using circular logic, you fail to comprehend
what I say, and I'm forced to repeat it. Perhaps that's why I spend so much
time talking with Frederick (the Fourth Apostle). He and I groove, we feel
energized after our discussions. I find you on the other hand, frustrating.
> All
> too often I have to deal with people who are not as intellectually
> capable to comprehend this type of discussion at all.
Yourself included I'm sorry to say. ;o)
> We have not used a variable for God because our science has yet to
> evolve to a level where it would make sense to do so. Unfortunately,
> the very idea of God has been promoted or otherwise marketed by jews,
> christians, and other religious mlm marketers to make a profit. People
> who do that are bigots, personally offensive to me. If people who
> believe the existance of God would stop being so trivial and
> illogical, there might be some active work for a scientist such as
> myself to actually prove the existance of God, and have those results
> be credible WITHOUT being used falsely by the fanatics to say 'look!
> here's the proof! he did it!' even if my experiment was not
> conclusive.
Many before you have tried, I invite you to prove god. If you prove
it, and I am able to reproduce your results, then I too will believe in god.
There you go, want me to believe in god? Prove it!
> Right now, it feels like a lonely research topic. There are few if any
> scientists who would work with me on this, due to the fact that it
> would require a lifetime of work.
A lifetime of frustration you mean. ;o)
> Additionally, the flack from the
> bible thumpers would condemn me for the very thought of proving God's
> existance. They are comfortable with thier myths, never to know there
> is actual proof for them beyond what they make for themselves. I want
> to be able to prove it or disprove it for them, having them know for
> once there is a scientist who does believe of God's existance while he
> works towards those ends.
Every indication suggests that gods do not exist. Deal with it. You
know I'm right, in your heart you KNOW I'm right, otherwise you're mind is far
too weak to take on such a task. Man invented god(s) in HIS own image, because
man is weak, and scared, and needs comfort. We tell sick people they are going
to be OK even when we know they are dying, why? Because we are HUMAN!
> Most scientists who would consider this
> topic would be atheists more than likely, and would attempt this great
> project just to disprove it. But by doing this, those same scientists
> carry their own personal bias with them that may lead areas of the
> test to be closer to their own favor (it isn't scientific, but several
> scientists have done this because they want specific test results, or
> are personally attached to their theory).
Like the cold fusion fraud, they are quickly, and thoroughly exposed.
> These scientists may carry
> their idea of "No God" right to the lab with them...thus making them
> just as defective of a scientist as I would be were I to use or
> manipulate any part of the enviroment determin a yes or no answer to
> God's existance.
Scientists operate from fact. Many times I've had to accept things I
didn't want to accept after repeated experimentation. It's a part of life.
> > You fall short of your own desires, thus reach out for the security of
> >your god for answers to that which you are unable to comprehend, or unwilling
> >to explore. This is typical in humans, so don't feel bad. This was how the
> >gods were created in the first place, by protohumans. :o)
>
> Well, I hope I do get somewhere with it. :) I will have wasted a lot
> of precious time if I don't. Good or bad, I will do all I can to find
> an answer...even if it means I have to put my own beliefs on the shelf
> to do so. It's that important to me for people to know.
Then spend your time more wisely, studying REAL Science. :o)
> > Reproduce god, or send him to me. I've made that offer to christians
> >for years, yet no god appears, no reproduction is made. Gods are not real.
>
> Well, most Christians are not scientists. Those who are usually won't
> speak of it. They may or may not see things as I do, but I know that
> because we do not have the tools or the knowledge to prove His
> existance, they will not step up to the challenge.
I don't know what schizoid event you experienced that you derive your
desires from, but perhaps you should experiment inside your own mind with
hallucinogenic drugs, see if you can reproduce the experience that caused your
belief in gods. Then counter that experience with antipsychotic drugs. Prove
to yourself gods are merely wishful thinking inside the minds of man.
> Then again, some of the people who emailed you about Christianity are
> really ridiculous with their ideals...trying to force conversion to
> their beliefs without evidence for you to review. The Bible has been
> manipulated, revised, edited, and is currently put out mostly by
> jewish publishers who are famous for creative story writing.
Yeah, like how the jewish controlled media never tell about how South
Africa was a first world nation (where heart transplantation was first
performed) but only under Apartheid, and only under White rule. Today under
black rule, rape is legal, murder is tolerated, and the nation has dropped to
third world status. The jews did not report when the negroes took power, they
killed all the white farmers, and are now starving. They don't report how
under Mandella, South Africa can no longer be trusted to pay debts, thus
Mastercard and Visa are NOT accepted there anymore. From a thriving First
World nation, to third world status in just SEVEN YEARS under black rule!
This same story can apply to Rhodesia (now black ruled Zimbabwe) only
the negroes in Zimbabwe reject the US food donations because we have
"poisonous" food, since we genetically modify OUR food. So now that Zimbabwe
has killed all their White farmers, and rejected our donations of food, they
can now all die, and I hope they die arduously, nobody deserves it more.
> >> I am a true scientist, as are you.
> >
> > I wouldn't hire you. ;o)
>
> That's ok, I'm quite satisfied with picking strawberries for $1.25 an
> hour. :oD LOL
Sounds like a job for you. ;o) You do show qualifications. :o)
> > I am a polytechnical research Scientist, involved in the areas of
> >embedded application & design, robotics, biotech, transgenics, and in general
> >research in the fields of physics, biology, and chemistry.
>
> Awesome! :) What area would you say is your favorite?
All aspects of Science intrigue me, but I am most fond of physical
sciences (physics).
> Oh, btw, I have a question for you with regard to a borderline
> chemistry experiment: Do you know where I may be able to acquire an
> instrument to measure picoseconds accurately? If not, a cesium 133 or
> hydrogen based atomic clock would do, so long as it is accurate to .6
> nanoseconds has the means to be connected to a PCI bus or serial port
> to display the results. I looked for test equipment like this, several
> companies...none fo which seemed to carry it. Tempustech.com is about
> the only commercial lead I've had for the computer interface side of
> it (I could probably use an old ISA card, remove the components, and
> use it as a daughterboard to build an atomic clock interface onto, but
> I'd rather not redo the work if it's already been done and is readily
> prepared).
http://www.nist.gov should be able to help you out there, but not
without substantial costs. Do you have plenty of money?
> > You would like to play with my artificial intelligence engine then. It
> >has passed the Turing 1 and Turing 2 tests for artificial intelligence.
>
> :) back-propogated neural network or other?
It's based upon the Case Based Reasoning logical engine created by Dr.
Richard Wallace. It is one of the more interesting AI programs you'll ever see.
> >Write to Frederick, he's experienced it and can tell you more.
>
> Ok, I'd love to test it out sometime. :) I currently run QNX and
> FreeBSD 4.7 on my system. I have a wine emulator on BSD, but it's
> buggy. I have freedos on my last partition, so if it's a dos prog., I
> can still run it even if dosEmu won't. Is there a url I could download
> the binaries from or sources to compile for either of these systems? :)
I can offer you an ELF binary, I run Red Hat linux myself, and this AI
was compiled as an ELF binary. The one binary is all inclusive, no library
files are needed. Let me know if you want it. :o) The version that runs on
IRC (what Frederick played with) is different, not just one single binary.
> >> Thanks again
> >> for your email, and I wish you a prosperous day.
> >
> > Same to you, only I will wish one more thing for you. I wish you would
> >be more critical and more skeptical in your thoughts. I wish you would
> >research farther than to attribute the unknown to "gods". That's what I wish.
>
> ;) I cannot make any promises, but I will try to be more skeptical and
> objective.
I sure hope so. :o) However, since you keep going in circles, I will
not reply to your next letter unless you break and go in a new direction,
either theist or atheist. If you sit the fence, I will not reply again.
Cheers!
James
|