Re: Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- From: "Peter F" <notdisclosed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:57:14 -0400 (EDT)
"g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dc1enl$1g7l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> There is a way of arguing that seems important to humans. Nature,
however,
> goes on its merry way, in advance of human arguments and afterward, not
> really giving a s--t .
>
If nature (other than in the form of many of us) is not bothered by its
products
why should you (we)? :)
Or, perhaps a certain concEPT of mine would cause less intellectual
indigestion if I further filtered
its philosophical substance, by writing it as S--TS. ;-)
P
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- From: Peter F
- Re: Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- From: g
- Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- Prev by Date: Stability before Function
- Next by Date: Re: entropy and bio-evo
- Previous by thread: Re: Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- Next by thread: Re: Inept memory lapse in post about Entropy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|