From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:31:12
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<1993Jan7.225814.20952@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<ewright.726520511@convex.convex.com>
	<1993Jan8.222334.20157@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<ewright.726726993@convex.convex.com>
	<MARTINC.93Jan11095834@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<ewright.726774867@convex.convex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:54:27 GMT

In article <ewright.726774867@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   In <MARTINC.93Jan11095834@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   >Look, schmuck, first of all, this doesn't follow UNLESS (a) the energy
   >and dedication used for developing one's mind and one's body are the
   >*same* thing; 

   Yes, Charlie, the energy used to develop the body and the
   energy used to develop the mind are exactly the same thing.
   In both cases, they are chemical energy derived from the ATP
   cycle.  Since you constantly brag about how many med-school 
   courses you've taken, you should at least have a passing
   acquaintance with high-school biology. 

I think that's "complain about how many..." since I did it without a
hope or intention of getting an MD.  In any case, you've used an
equivocation to make that "point" ... of *course* all the "energy" used
is Krebs cycle energy.  But if you hadn't deleted the rest of the
sentence it would be clear in place that you've cut this outr of context
for a cheap line.

   >(b) the quantity of energy and dedication are so great
   >that it can't be expended in all one's waking hours.  

   That doesn't following at all.  The claim was that the
   limiting factors were energy and dedication, not the
   number of waking hours. Do try to pay attention, Charlie.

You need that equivocation -- a false one -- to make this stand up.  Try
harder. 

   Furthermore, extremely dedicated people (e.g., Thomas Alva Edison) 
   often find themselves sleeping less than ordinary people,
   so it is possible to have more dedication than waking hours.

Oh.  No wonder Edison did so much stuff.  The number of his waking
hours was greater than ( 24 - hours sleeping).  Uh huh.

   >If you're really spending *every* *waking* *minute* on improving your mind,
   >or at least find that getting time to eat and shit interferes with the
   >time you spend improving you mind, you might have a case.  

   Either that or athletes cannot give up eating, excreting,
   etc. to find more time for exercise.  Something else they 
   forgot to teach you in medical school -- athletes also need
   to eat, egest. etc.  (Although, I'm sure they did teach
   you that when athletes egest, it doesn't stink.)  To find
   time to exercise, the things they give up must be things are
   not necessary to supporting life. 

Still not listening.  If you are spending every hour OUTSIDE of eating
etc on improving your mind, with not one minute left for other things,
then exercise might interfere with improving your mind.  However, the
argument you never ever deal with is the one that's been clearly stated
over and over again and remains unrefuted: that *appropriate* amounts of
exercise *clear* youer mind and make it *easier* to "improve" your mind.

   Furthermore, eating, egestion, etc., are not ordinarily so painful 
   that they prevent conversation or contemplation from taking place
   simulatenously.  They do not leave you so short of breathe that 
   conversation is impossible.  And if your diet doesn't consist
   entirely of tofu, bean sprouts, and "ultra fuel," eating itself 
   *can* be an intellectually rewarding experience.

Fascinating.  I suppose my old catering customers never thought of that.
They mostly enjoyed the *sensual* experience.

   >And second, you seem to compusively bring this up every so often.  I
   >already know you're incapable of hearing or understanding anything that
   >challenges your defensive obsessions.  I'm not interested.  Why are you
   >bothering? 

   What's the matter, Charlie, did Dr. Feelgood reduce the voltage
   on you?

This is a marvelous demo.  Not a single argument that you haven't used
before, each and every one of them specious, supported by ad hominem
(circumstantial) and equivocation.  What makes it SO important to you
that you remain, after months, obsessed with this topic?


--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T