From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:32:00 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>    This sounds vaguely reasonable, but the scenario has been acted out 
>before in the form of the British Army in 1915/1916. During the First World 
>War Britain's Lord Kitchener called for volunteers pledging that those who 
>signed up together would be allowed to serve together. It was overwhelmingly 
>successful at first, but the regional composition of the battalions was the 
>precursor to tragedy. As waves of shop-keepers and clerks were cut down in 
>thousands on the fields of France, their communities were simultaneously 
>striken with grief that is sometimes difficult to comprehend. Have you ever 
>heard the phrase "the Lost Generation?" Just think of the tradegy it would 
>portend if all those lost were right-thinking conservatives.

--What are the chances...we don't really fight wars, if you call them that,
like that anymore.  Certainly the "lost generation" couldn't be enough
of a reason for your not liking the idea.  What if we did lose a lot of
right-wing conservatives?  There would be more to take our place. I'd
hardly consider that a tragedy.  These gays are widely distributed and
if what they say is correct, more will be born as gays are born gay.
Do you know whether the moniker of "queer" is accepted elsewhere.
Shit, relagated to 4800baud.  Will have to make this short...too slow.  I
need my own internet IP number.

>    Admittedly not much. Most of what I recall came from a book by Emilio 
>Segre called _From_X-rays_to_Quarks_. Since Segre was a contemporary of 
>Einstein and Bohr I find his description of the personal interactions 
>involved in the development of QM quite fascinating.
>    No, I don't have problems with empirical work either then or now. The 
>thing that I (and Albert) have (had) problems with is the Copenhagen 
>interpretation of the theory (essentially that beneath a certain level 
>statistics are all there is and determinism goes out the window). Certainly 
>at that point our tools for understanding and investigating are all 
>statistical, but I just don't believe that low level particle interactions 
>are purely due to chance. 

Heisenberg wrong?  Really, determinism does go out the window.  Not really
more difficult that believeing that energy must be sent in packets (quanta)
and that energy probes are the only way we can detect if something is there.
Oh, yes, massless particles, also, particles with negative mass.  Still looks
though like those too will have an effect on what it is that we are trying to 
figure out deterministically.


>    After that, who knows. I keep waiting for some conservative to buy me a 
>copy of Rush's book since I can't bring myself to do it.

--Forget Rush's book.  1) Don't buy paperback.  2) It is all the same as 
everything that Rush says on TV and radio.
	How about reading something better, LIKE RISING SUN by
Michael Creighton.

NOW THERE IS A BOOK.  That should be next on anyone's list.  An American
Life really lends a lot of credibility to the greatest president of the 20th
century.  (Nixon is #2, Bush way off in the distance.  Jack Kemp will be #3.)

Okay, Engle.  Question.  Age, what is yours?  You know, they say the older
one gets, the more conservative.


Gregory Daigle
Cornell University

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh