From: Zebee Johnstone on 4 Dec 2008 14:39
In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:24:40 +1100
jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> Aaah yes the much predicted death of the mainframe... after 20 years I'm
> sure it'll happen soon
And then the predicted death of FORTRAN.
From: G-S on 4 Dec 2008 15:04
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:24:40 +1100
> jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Aaah yes the much predicted death of the mainframe... after 20 years I'm
>> sure it'll happen soon
> And then the predicted death of FORTRAN.
I may have had to make a living out of COBOL at one stage but my first
love was always FORTRAN!
Now there's a language... 
 No you may not have my rose tinted glasses :)
From: Peter Cremasco on 4 Dec 2008 15:32
> "CrazyCam" <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> JL wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 1:48 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
>>>> You think I'm on the wrong track, I think I'm on the right track. You
>>>> are a capitalist pig and I am socialist scum.
>>> Man, how confusing, Doug thinks I'm a left wing socialist, and you
>>> think I'm a right wing capitalist pig (isn't it normally pig dog ?).
>>> I guess that means I probably am in the political centre as I always
>> Or perhaps, shows aus.moto as a very broad church!
> Church? Eeek, I'm outta here! <snigger>
Church (n): gathering of people
From: CrazyCam on 4 Dec 2008 15:39
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:04 +1100, CrazyCam
>> OK if that is first prize, what is second prize?
> Second prize is having to share a cell with John Winston Howard for
> twenty years, or until death does them part...
If I can take a large pair of bolt cutters.... I'll take it!
From: JL on 4 Dec 2008 22:49
On Dec 5, 12:41 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:29:11 +1100, jl <not-h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> >We haven't had a debate yet. So far you've failed to answer any
> >questions, back up any of your assertions or attempted to rebut any
> >counter argument.
> >What you've actually done is pontificated, then stood on your soapbox
> >saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" when the gaping holes in your tale
> >were pointed out
> If you were expecting that I was trying to convince you with anything
> that you would accept as 'acceptable evidence', then we both know that
> I knew that in your Weltanschauung, no such thing can possibly exist
Bollocks. The only reason acceptable evidence would be non existent
would be if there was no basis to your argument. If your claimed "many
economists" exist then there must be a factual basis of some sort.
This isn't religion, this is basic first year social science. It's not
"a belief system" it's a science of human behaviour and interaction.
Actions have reactions and consequences. The only real difference to
physics is people have emotions and hence that makes them prone to
randomness and irrational behaviour. That's ok, it just means you can
never 100% predict an outcome, you can only every give a probability
to an outcome. That's why you have to model behaviours and that's why
you have asset bubbles and bursts.
> and, ergo, I wouldn't waste my time trying.
> I have told you that there are economists with views similar to mine
> and when you master the art of Googling, you will be able to find them
> and tell them how wrong they are.
> I'm not interested, John.
Like most religious people you've formed an irrational belief system
that doesn't stand up to challenge, and leaves you with an
unsupportable "it is because I said so" position. It's interesting
that your high priests to buttress your belief are the very same ones
who you claim to be the "rortists" who should be digging holes with
trenching tools out the back of bourke.
Table your economists and their arguments that you believe support
your position, you can hardly expect me to guess which out of the
multiple millions of economic articles written are the ones that are
your peculiar bible.