Faced with concerns about the terrible situation in Iraq, Philadelphia's
transit strike, an upcoming election in NJ for governor, and a few other
issues, I can't help but think of an odd food-related situation that I
witnessed last week.

On my way to work one morning, I stopped at a food truck near my office
to get breakfast to eat in my office. The person in line behind me is a
colleague. I listened to him as he placed his food order.

He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...

"I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
but please do not assemble the sandwich."

The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused look.
Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast, egg,
and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.

So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.

This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was my
colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
toast, and bacon.

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> Faced with concerns about the terrible situation in Iraq, Philadelphia's
> transit strike, an upcoming election in NJ for governor, and a few other
> issues, I can't help but think of an odd food-related situation that I
> witnessed last week.
>
> On my way to work one morning, I stopped at a food truck near my office
> to get breakfast to eat in my office. The person in line behind me is a
> colleague. I listened to him as he placed his food order.
>
> He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
>
> "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> but please do not assemble the sandwich."
>
> The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused look.
> Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast, egg,
> and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.
>
> So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
> strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
> the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.
>
> This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was my
> colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
> colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
> you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
> several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
> toast, and bacon.


But I'll bet the one egg platter costs a little more than the bacon and
egg sandwich.

Bob

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> Faced with concerns about the terrible situation in Iraq,
> Philadelphia's
> transit strike, an upcoming election in NJ for governor, and a few
> other
> issues, I can't help but think of an odd food-related situation that I
> witnessed last week.
>
> On my way to work one morning, I stopped at a food truck near my
> office
> to get breakfast to eat in my office. The person in line behind me is
> a
> colleague. I listened to him as he placed his food order.
>
> He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
>
> "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> but please do not assemble the sandwich."
>
> The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused
> look.
> Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast,
> egg,
> and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.
>
> So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
> strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
> the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.
>
> This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was
> my
> colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
> colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
> you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
> several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried
> eggs,
> toast, and bacon.

A platter. He wanted that but complicated it all

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was
my
> colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter.


You didn't see what they charged him?!?!

If they charged him for a sandwich, it's a sandwich.
If they charged him for the platter, it's a platter.

Andy

Maybe he didn't want it to get soggy. Separate items, he could
assemble it later.
Nancree

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:25:22 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
>toast, and bacon.

I vote for the skim milk and Special K cereal.

nancree wrote:
> Maybe he didn't want it to get soggy. Separate items, he could
> assemble it later.

Or he keeps packets of mayo in his desk drawer because the truck
doesn't use it. -aem

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was my
> colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
> colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
> you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
> several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
> toast, and bacon.

Purely a matter of personal choice. If you prefer to call it a platter,
call it a platter. If you prefer to call it a sandwich, call it a
sandwich. Try it both ways, and let us know which you prefer.

-bwg
:-)

"nancree" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Maybe he didn't want it to get soggy. Separate items, he could
> assemble it later.
> Nancree
>

Makes sense. Especially if the yolk on the fried egg gets broken when the
sandwich is assembled.

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> nancree wrote:
>> Maybe he didn't want it to get soggy. Separate items, he could
>> assemble it later.
>
> Or he keeps packets of mayo in his desk drawer because the truck
> doesn't use it. -aem
>

I'm sure he knows whose desk to go to for ketchup packets!

C

On Wed 02 Nov 2005 02:25:22p, Stan Horwitz wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Faced with concerns about the terrible situation in Iraq, Philadelphia's
> transit strike, an upcoming election in NJ for governor, and a few other
> issues, I can't help but think of an odd food-related situation that I
> witnessed last week.
>
> On my way to work one morning, I stopped at a food truck near my office
> to get breakfast to eat in my office. The person in line behind me is a
> colleague. I listened to him as he placed his food order.
>
> He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
>
> "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> but please do not assemble the sandwich."
>
> The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused look.
> Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast, egg,
> and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.
>
> So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
> strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
> the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.
>
> This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was my
> colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
> colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
> you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
> several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
> toast, and bacon.

My guess is that the platter on the menu was more expensive than the
sandwich.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/eikz78.jpg

Meet Mr. Bailey

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Wed 02 Nov 2005 02:25:22p, Stan Horwitz wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> > He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
> >
> > "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> > but please do not assemble the sandwich."
> >
> > The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused look.
> > Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast, egg,
> > and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.
> >
> > So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
> > strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
> > the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.
> >
> > This brings up a perplexing question that I want to ask here now. Was my
> > colleague's breakfast a sandwich or a platter? I vote platter. My
> > colleague, evidently viewed his breakfast order as a sandwich. What do
> > you say? By the way, the menu on the front of this food truck lists
> > several breakfast items, including a platter with one or two fried eggs,
> > toast, and bacon.

> My guess is that the platter on the menu was more expensive than the
> sandwich.

What an obfuscating puzzle. Too bad the earl of sandwich died many
centuries ago - the originator might have some definitions on his
namesake. On one hand, he is saving them the effort to assemble the
sandwich. On the other hand, he is breakomg the routine and that may
not be appreciated in the truck.

If it's not arranged on a platter, it's not quite a platter, now is it?
Unless they place it platterly in the plastic container.

What surprised me is that the woman looked confused. Is this the first
time this was tried then? Apparently so or someone new in the truck?
Why the confusion? With the strike the dissassembler could not show as
usual to man the truck? Or woman the truck?

Stan Horwitz wrote:
> He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
>
> "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> but please do not assemble the sandwich."
>
The "platter" probably cost more. That and the sogginess factor others have
mentioned. If your co-worker is anything like me, I got tackled (not
literally) the minute I walked in the door with "this server is down" or
"such and such isn't working" and a sandwich would sit and get soggy by the
time I got to eat it an hour later.

Then again, at the little store down the street that does breakfast, a
sandwich like that (would be on a biscuit; they didn't do toast) would cost
$2.00. The breakfast platter includes eggs, grits or hash browns (home
fries), choice of meat being: 3 strips of bacon or 2 sausage patties, a
slice of fried ham or fried balogna and a biscuit for only twice the cost of
the "sandwich". I used to buy the platter and have enough to reheat in the
microwave for breakfast the next day. Not ideal, obviously, but less
expensive in the long run.

Jill

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> On my way to work one morning, I stopped at a food truck near my office
> to get breakfast to eat in my office. The person in line behind me is a
> colleague. I listened to him as he placed his food order.
>
> He ordered his breakfast by saying something along the lines of ...
>
> "I want a fried egg and bacon sandwich on toasted wheat bread,
> but please do not assemble the sandwich."
>
> The woman in the food truck gazed at my colleague with a confused look.
> Without being prompted, my colleague said that he wanted the toast, egg,
> and bacon packed "separately in a plastic container" to quote him.
>
> So, I looked at him and said with a smile on my face that he was a
> strange person. Why not just order a friend egg platter? He shrugged,
> the woman handed me my food, I paid, and I left.


Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
SOmetimes people are just plain weird.

gloria p

Chris wrote:
> "aem" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>nancree wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe he didn't want it to get soggy. Separate items, he could
>>>assemble it later.
>>
>>Or he keeps packets of mayo in his desk drawer because the truck
>>doesn't use it. -aem
>>
>
>
> I'm sure he knows whose desk to go to for ketchup packets!
>
> C
>
>

PACKETS??? I'll bet he has a gallon jug.

gloria p

In article >,
Puester > wrote:

> Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
> SOmetimes people are just plain weird.

Why would that make him a cheapskate? I'm asking in all seriousness.
Let's say he ordered it this way because it was cheaper. Maybe this is
a way that he (or his family) has chosen to save a little money. If the
company allowed it, he wasn't breaking any rules, and he asked, so it
wasn't trickery. It wasn't clear to me that he went to this place every
day, so maybe this was a special thing. I guess I don't understand why
he must be a cheapskate (and you're not the first person to say or imply
this) if part of his reasoning is price.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

Ranee Mueller wrote:
> In article >,
> Puester > wrote:
>
>
>>Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
>>SOmetimes people are just plain weird.
>
>
> Why would that make him a cheapskate? I'm asking in all seriousness.
> Let's say he ordered it this way because it was cheaper. Maybe this is
> a way that he (or his family) has chosen to save a little money. If the
> company allowed it, he wasn't breaking any rules, and he asked, so it
> wasn't trickery. It wasn't clear to me that he went to this place every
> day, so maybe this was a special thing. I guess I don't understand why
> he must be a cheapskate (and you're not the first person to say or imply
> this) if part of his reasoning is price.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee
>


You said that as if "cheapskate" was a bad thing...

Best regards,
Bob

Ranee Mueller wrote:
> In article >,
> Puester > wrote:
>
>
>>Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
>>SOmetimes people are just plain weird.
>
>
> Why would that make him a cheapskate? I'm asking in all seriousness.
> Let's say he ordered it this way because it was cheaper. Maybe this is
> a way that he (or his family) has chosen to save a little money. If the
> company allowed it, he wasn't breaking any rules, and he asked, so it
> wasn't trickery. It wasn't clear to me that he went to this place every
> day, so maybe this was a special thing. I guess I don't understand why
> he must be a cheapskate (and you're not the first person to say or imply
> this) if part of his reasoning is price.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee


If there was a difference in price between the platter and sandwich
there's a reason for it, probably labor-related. If he ordered the
sandwich in a platter configuration, he was trying to get around the
cost, which isn't fair to the vendor.

gloria p

zxcvbob wrote:
> Ranee Mueller wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Puester > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
>>> SOmetimes people are just plain weird.
>>
>
>
> You said that as if "cheapskate" was a bad thing...
>
> Best regards,
> Bob



There's nothing wrong with being a cheapskate unless you are taking
unfair advantage of another person or a vendor.

I'm thinking right now of the skiers/snowboarders I've seen with
literally thousands of dollars in gear and clothing who order a
cup of hot water in the lodge and steal packets of ketchup and
crackers to make tomato soup for lunch. Then they sit there and
brag about how much beer they're gonna drink apres-ski.

That's cheap and tacky, IMO.

gloria p

In article >,
Puester > wrote:

> If there was a difference in price between the platter and sandwich
> there's a reason for it, probably labor-related. If he ordered the
> sandwich in a platter configuration, he was trying to get around the
> cost, which isn't fair to the vendor.

It isn't unfair to the vendor if they allow someone to do it.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

"Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Puester > wrote:
>
>> If there was a difference in price between the platter and sandwich
>> there's a reason for it, probably labor-related. If he ordered the
>> sandwich in a platter configuration, he was trying to get around the
>> cost, which isn't fair to the vendor.
>
> It isn't unfair to the vendor if they allow someone to do it.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee
>

This has to rank as the most trivial thread in history.


--
Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken wrote:

> "Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Puester > wrote:
> >
> >> If there was a difference in price between the platter and sandwich
> >> there's a reason for it, probably labor-related. If he ordered the
> >> sandwich in a platter configuration, he was trying to get around the
> >> cost, which isn't fair to the vendor.
> >
> > It isn't unfair to the vendor if they allow someone to do it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ranee
> >

> This has to rank as the most trivial thread in history.
> Peter Aiken

I agree that economics and ethics are often trivial but tell that to
the great majority of people? Look at it closely. Many apples fall on
people, but how many came up with the first laws of motion and
gravity's formula? And most people knew that everything was relative
but how many came up with the theory of relativity?

Threads cannot be trivial by themselves. That's a process or labeling
applied to them. I don't think this thread is trivial but you do. Why?

And I don't think this is irrelevant to cooking. When I go to a
supermarket I find that most of the products are what I would call
"garbage" - too high in salt, processed substances with long chemical
names, low in fiber, high in kilocalories and so on. I think that is
due to economics and ethics, somewhat akin to the "trivial" thread we
are discussing. You probably think that there is not any thread here
and that could be. I think that the transactional analysis here
indicates rules of behavior that are key.

wrote:
> [snip]
> most people knew that everything was relative
> but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
>
I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is certainly
one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:06:38 -0800, Ranee Mueller wrote:

> In article >,
> Puester > wrote:
>
> > Is he a cheapskate? Maybe the sandwich is cheaper than the platter.
> > SOmetimes people are just plain weird.
>
> Why would that make him a cheapskate? I'm asking in all seriousness.
> Let's say he ordered it this way because it was cheaper. Maybe this is
> a way that he (or his family) has chosen to save a little money. If the
> company allowed it, he wasn't breaking any rules, and he asked, so it
> wasn't trickery. It wasn't clear to me that he went to this place every
> day, so maybe this was a special thing. I guess I don't understand why
> he must be a cheapskate (and you're not the first person to say or imply
> this) if part of his reasoning is price.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee

I don't see ordering it that way as a problem - unless he expected it
with the same presentation as the platter.

aem wrote:
> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > most people knew that everything was relative
> > but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
> >
> I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is certainly
> one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem

Why?

wrote:
> aem wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > most people knew that everything was relative
> > > but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
> > >
> > I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is certainly
> > one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem
>
> Why?

Because "everything is relative" has nothing to do with the "theory of
relativity." It makes just as much sense as saying, "everyone has a
relative but how many came up with the theory of relativity."

It was clear you were trying to make a real point but what you wrote
doesn't get there. Just struck me as funny. -aem

aem wrote:

>
> wrote:
>> aem wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > > [snip]
>> > > most people knew that everything was relative
>> > > but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
>> > >
>> > I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is
certainly
>> > one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because "everything is relative" has nothing to do with the "theory of
> relativity." It makes just as much sense as saying, "everyone has a
> relative but how many came up with the theory of relativity."
>
> It was clear you were trying to make a real point but what you wrote
> doesn't get there. Just struck me as funny. -aem


Excuse me for piggybacking.

The theory of relativity clearly states:

You can pick your friends but you can't pick your relatives.


Andy
Yet again.
[groan]

aem wrote:
> wrote:
> > aem wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > most people knew that everything was relative
> > > > but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
> > > >
> > > I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is certainly
> > > one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because "everything is relative" has nothing to do with the "theory of
> relativity." It makes just as much sense as saying, "everyone has a
> relative but how many came up with the theory of relativity."
>
> It was clear you were trying to make a real point but what you wrote
> doesn't get there. Just struck me as funny. -aem

That could be. I did not want to delve into something I know marginally
about, namely physics. But there was an anecdote about this very topic.
Someone was writing about how many people suspected different phenomena
were related, like light and space and energy, but only Einstein
brought it together in theory. A person would say that it's all
relative, but lack the consequential theory to tie it together. Some
scientists even were close but they lacked the ablity to go out on the
edge and publish what would contradict most of known classical physics
that was favored by church or conservative interests.

To say that it's all relative is to also imply that the world is not
absolute. To also say that it's not a big clock ticking away. It also
contradicts a rigid, absolute world which is favored by the church
institutions. So in a real way, it's becoming controversial and
affecting areas way outside science.

And in a way, similar to intelligent design versus evolution. That big
a difference. To say it's all relative is to say that a simplistic
God-driven clockwork type of universe does not exist. The world of
Aristotle, and more importantly, the world of Newton, are not as
accurate and not as completely truthful, except in limited situations,
as the world of Einstein.

wrote:
>
> That could be. I did not want to delve into something I know marginally
> about, namely physics. But there was an anecdote about this very topic.
> Someone was writing about how many people suspected different phenomena
> were related, like light and space and energy, but only Einstein
> brought it together in theory. A person would say that it's all
> relative, but lack the consequential theory to tie it together. [snip]

I have a simpler, more easily amused, mind than you do. -aem

aem wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > That could be. I did not want to delve into something I know marginally
> > about, namely physics. But there was an anecdote about this very topic.
> > Someone was writing about how many people suspected different phenomena
> > were related, like light and space and energy, but only Einstein
> > brought it together in theory. A person would say that it's all
> > relative, but lack the consequential theory to tie it together. [snip]
>
> I have a simpler, more easily amused, mind than you do. -aem

Not at all. I'm sure you are far more complex. I just want to figure
out why the universe is put together in such a poorly cooked style.
They talk of intelligent design but all I see is an unintelligent
design.

wrote:

>
> aem wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > That could be. I did not want to delve into something I know
>> > marginally about, namely physics. But there was an anecdote about
>> > this very topic. Someone was writing about how many people
>> > suspected different phenomena were related, like light and space
>> > and energy, but only Einstein brought it together in theory. A
>> > person would say that it's all relative, but lack the consequential
>> > theory to tie it together. [snip]
>>
>> I have a simpler, more easily amused, mind than you do. -aem
>
> Not at all. I'm sure you are far more complex. I just want to figure
> out why the universe is put together in such a poorly cooked style.
> They talk of intelligent design but all I see is an unintelligent
> design.


"There's no life in outerspace! If there was, WE'D BE SENDING THEM
FOREIGN AID!!!"
--Jay Leno

Andy

Andy wrote:

> aem wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> aem wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > > most people knew that everything was relative
> >> > > but how many came up with the theory of relativity?
> >> > >
> >> > I don't know if the thread is the most trivial. But this is
> certainly
> >> > one of the funniest lines I've ever seen. -aem

> >> Why?

> > Because "everything is relative" has nothing to do with the "theory of
> > relativity." It makes just as much sense as saying, "everyone has a
> > relative but how many came up with the theory of relativity."

Really? Are you sure? Relativity theory did away with the absolutist
approach that was favored by Aristotle, all the churches, especially
the Catholic church, and those who thought the universe was a big clock
with fixed points in space. These were rather orthodox people who
thought the universe was a big clock with a set time. The rest of us
thought it's all "relative" - time does not exist but what exists is
the interval between two events which we then call "time."

Things that seemed not connected were found to be connected, like, oh,
energy and matter. Remember that famous footnote from one of his 1905
papers:
e=mc-squared?

That was a big relative there. With lots of consequences, like atomic
bombs.
Now I could be wrong but tell me how. Relativity theory connects things
in ways that were not apparent before Einstein. Some people, like
Poincare did connect the dots but he was, in my opinion, way too afraid
to go against the public opinion and the conservative or parochial
forces in France.

> > It was clear you were trying to make a real point but what you wrote
> > doesn't get there. Just struck me as funny. -aem
>
>
> Excuse me for piggybacking.
>
> The theory of relativity clearly states:
>
> You can pick your friends but you can't pick your relatives.
>
>
> Andy
> Yet again.
> [groan]

wrote:
>
> Not at all. I'm sure you are far more complex. I just want to figure
> out why the universe is put together in such a poorly cooked style.
> They talk of intelligent design but all I see is an unintelligent
> design.

Seriously? I see signs of intelligent design all the time. Example:
By-the-Wind Sailor jellyfish (scientific name Velella velella). They
evolved in two forms, mirror images - some with right-bending sails and
others with left-bending sails, so that their offspring would sail on
different wind currents, dispersing them over a greater area, so that
the offspring have a greater chance of survival.

http://jellieszone.com/velella.htm

Pretty freaking intelligent, if you ask me. There are tons of other
examples in biology.

-L.

-L. wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Not at all. I'm sure you are far more complex. I just want to figure
> > out why the universe is put together in such a poorly cooked style.
> > They talk of intelligent design but all I see is an unintelligent
> > design.
>
> Seriously? I see signs of intelligent design all the time. Example:
> By-the-Wind Sailor jellyfish (scientific name Velella velella). They
> evolved in two forms, mirror images - some with right-bending sails and
> others with left-bending sails, so that their offspring would sail on
> different wind currents, dispersing them over a greater area, so that
> the offspring have a greater chance of survival.
>
> http://jellieszone.com/velella.htm
>
> Pretty freaking intelligent, if you ask me. There are tons of other
> examples in biology.
>
> -L.

Yes but where is the intelligence in that? It's in you for saying, aha,
that worked out okay. But that's anthropomorphism or deism perhaps on
your part? The actual mechanism is not intelligent. If you study the
genetics, it's partly random re-ordering and the successful
re-orderings is what eventually happens and endures. It's not like
someone builds a pretty wall. It's more like throwing the bricks all
around and one time, they land correctly. The only intelligent design
or Godliness you see there is what is in you. Clever fellow!

Again, listen, the actual genetic DNA is a random process. Sort of like
a machine gun that is not accurate. You throw lots of bullets and one
hits. It looks like someone aimed, but that's an illusion.

wrote:
> Yes but where is the intelligence in that? It's in you for saying, aha,
> that worked out okay. But that's anthropomorphism or deism perhaps on
> your part? The actual mechanism is not intelligent. If you study the
> genetics

I was a molecular biologist for 15 years. I have studied plenty of
genetics.

>, it's partly random re-ordering and the successful
> re-orderings is what eventually happens and endures. It's not like
> someone builds a pretty wall. It's more like throwing the bricks all
> around and one time, they land correctly.

Whom or what is "throwing" the bricks? What is the energy or force
which governs all other forces? What causes tRNA to land specifically
on the target amino acid and deliver it to the ribosome? These
questions cannot be answered.

> The only intelligent design
> or Godliness you see there is what is in you. Clever fellow!

I'm not a fellow.

>
> Again, listen, the actual genetic DNA is a random process. Sort of like
> a machine gun that is not accurate. You throw lots of bullets and one
> hits. It looks like someone aimed, but that's an illusion.

To you. Enough evidence points elsewhere, for me. That's the beauty
of the question, in the first place.

I don't know how people can look at certain things and not see "God",
for lack of better word. For me, I see it in many places: my child's
face, the intricate pattern on the delicate wings of a butterfly, the
beauty of death. I don't pretend to answer the question for others,
and I expect them to give me the same respect. I don't believe it is a
question the government should even attempt to touch upon. I also leave
room for doubt, which is the mistake most people make (on either side),
in not doing so.

-L.

-L. wrote:
> wrote:
> > Yes but where is the intelligence in that? It's in you for saying, aha,
> > that worked out okay. But that's anthropomorphism or deism perhaps on
> > your part? The actual mechanism is not intelligent. If you study the
> > genetics
>
> I was a molecular biologist for 15 years. I have studied plenty of
> genetics.
>
> >, it's partly random re-ordering and the successful
> > re-orderings is what eventually happens and endures. It's not like
> > someone builds a pretty wall. It's more like throwing the bricks all
> > around and one time, they land correctly.
>
> Whom or what is "throwing" the bricks? What is the energy or force
> which governs all other forces? What causes tRNA to land specifically
> on the target amino acid and deliver it to the ribosome? These
> questions cannot be answered.

You're the molecular biologist - you tell me.

You seriously think there is some old guy with a long gray beard
manipulating the randomization of the whatevers that cause genetic
differences and evolution?

Just asking. Okay, some old lady if you will

> > The only intelligent design
> > or Godliness you see there is what is in you. Clever fellow!
>
> I'm not a fellow.

Are you a fellee then? What's the feminine of fellow?

> >
> > Again, listen, the actual genetic DNA is a random process. Sort of like
> > a machine gun that is not accurate. You throw lots of bullets and one
> > hits. It looks like someone aimed, but that's an illusion.
>
> To you. Enough evidence points elsewhere, for me. That's the beauty
> of the question, in the first place.
>
> I don't know how people can look at certain things and not see "God",
> for lack of better word. For me, I see it in many places: my child's
> face, the intricate pattern on the delicate wings of a butterfly, the
> beauty of death. I don't pretend to answer the question for others,
> and I expect them to give me the same respect. I don't believe it is a
> question the government should even attempt to touch upon. I also leave
> room for doubt, which is the mistake most people make (on either side),
> in not doing so.
>
> -L.

I think using God is cheapening the process. Yes things are quite
interesting. But because I cannot figure them out, why postulate
something that is no there? This all reminds me of the "ether" problem
in physics - which Albert Einstein put to rest quite superbly.

Because there is order in the universe does not mean that there is any
pre-ordained ordering influence. That's a naughty trick your brain
plays on you. As David Hume pointed out, long ago, it's all a figment
of your imagination.

And some systems are self-ordering as Prigogine show with his 1977
Nobel Prize and in a way, the first great female mathematician,
No-ether, okay, just kidding, Noether, laid the groundwork for
Einstein's relativity with her theorems in abstract algebra.

Tough brain stuff here but no god in site. Or on site.

But I'm all ears. As Miller showed, put some what in a glass, and shoot
a spark through it, and you've made life, or the building blocks of
such. Right?

I see beauty. I don't see God. I see ugliness. Then I see God

I'll bet you were very young when you started believing in God, yes?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> -L. wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Yes but where is the intelligence in that? It's in you for saying,
>> > aha,
>> > that worked out okay. But that's anthropomorphism or deism perhaps
>> > on
>> > your part? The actual mechanism is not intelligent. If you study
>> > the
>> > genetics
>>
>> I was a molecular biologist for 15 years. I have studied plenty of
>> genetics.
>>
>> >, it's partly random re-ordering and the successful
>> > re-orderings is what eventually happens and endures. It's not like
>> > someone builds a pretty wall. It's more like throwing the bricks
>> > all
>> > around and one time, they land correctly.
>>
>> Whom or what is "throwing" the bricks? What is the energy or force
>> which governs all other forces? What causes tRNA to land
>> specifically
>> on the target amino acid and deliver it to the ribosome? These
>> questions cannot be answered.
>
> You're the molecular biologist - you tell me.
>
> You seriously think there is some old guy with a long gray beard
> manipulating the randomization of the whatevers that cause genetic
> differences and evolution?
>
> Just asking. Okay, some old lady if you will
>
>> > The only intelligent design
>> > or Godliness you see there is what is in you. Clever fellow!
>>
>> I'm not a fellow.
>
> Are you a fellee then? What's the feminine of fellow?
>
>> >
>> > Again, listen, the actual genetic DNA is a random process. Sort of
>> > like
>> > a machine gun that is not accurate. You throw lots of bullets and
>> > one
>> > hits. It looks like someone aimed, but that's an illusion.
>>
>> To you. Enough evidence points elsewhere, for me. That's the beauty
>> of the question, in the first place.
>>
>> I don't know how people can look at certain things and not see "God",
>> for lack of better word. For me, I see it in many places: my child's
>> face, the intricate pattern on the delicate wings of a butterfly, the
>> beauty of death. I don't pretend to answer the question for others,
>> and I expect them to give me the same respect. I don't believe it is
>> a
>> question the government should even attempt to touch upon. I also
>> leave
>> room for doubt, which is the mistake most people make (on either
>> side),
>> in not doing so.
>>
>> -L.
>
> I think using God is cheapening the process. Yes things are quite
> interesting. But because I cannot figure them out, why postulate
> something that is no there? This all reminds me of the "ether" problem
> in physics - which Albert Einstein put to rest quite superbly.
>
> Because there is order in the universe does not mean that there is any
> pre-ordained ordering influence. That's a naughty trick your brain
> plays on you. As David Hume pointed out, long ago, it's all a figment
> of your imagination.
>
> And some systems are self-ordering as Prigogine show with his 1977
> Nobel Prize and in a way, the first great female mathematician,
> No-ether, okay, just kidding, Noether, laid the groundwork for
> Einstein's relativity with her theorems in abstract algebra.
>
> Tough brain stuff here but no god in site. Or on site.
>
> But I'm all ears. As Miller showed, put some what in a glass, and
> shoot
> a spark through it, and you've made life, or the building blocks of
> such. Right?
>
> I see beauty. I don't see God. I see ugliness. Then I see God
>
> I'll bet you were very young when you started believing in God, yes?

Why do you feel the need to be so patronising? -L has show you nothing
but respect!

Ophelia

I did not mean to be patronizing.

Are you sure?

What sentence is patronizing? In any event, the important question is
the question, not the phaseology.

You are confusing debate with patronizing. I guess you don't like my
sense of humor.

But you need a sense of humor when you are discussing how the universe
is put together. These are not ontological arguments here but
empirical, so they will be extremely difficult without a light touch.

In any event, don't stir up the pot. Let's keep the discussion about
God. This has nothing to do with her personally, okay?

And I am not patronizing to her. I didn't even know she is a she. It's
all about the argument. It's like discussing angels on the head of a
pin. And worse. It's a big step backwards to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Not good for anybody.

Because a butterfly has pretty wings does not mean that God exists and
made them when he shut off the TV to get down to making butterflies.

wrote:
>
> You're the molecular biologist - you tell me.
>

I dunno - that's why I leave the question open to interpretation.

> You seriously think there is some old guy with a long gray beard
> manipulating the randomization of the whatevers that cause genetic
> differences and evolution?

Who said anything about some old guy with a long grey beard?

>
> Just asking. Okay, some old lady if you will
>
> > > The only intelligent design
> > > or Godliness you see there is what is in you. Clever fellow!
> >
> > I'm not a fellow.
>
> Are you a fellee then? What's the feminine of fellow?

Fellowess? Just call me Mastah.

> I think using God is cheapening the process. Yes things are quite
> interesting. But because I cannot figure them out, why postulate
> something that is no there?

Why not? It has to start somewhere - no? Maybe not. I don't know - I
don't have all the answers. Just questioning. Like a good Unitarian.

> This all reminds me of the "ether" problem
> in physics - which Albert Einstein put to rest quite superbly.
>
> Because there is order in the universe does not mean that there is any
> pre-ordained ordering influence.

Doesn't mean that there isn't.

>That's a naughty trick your brain
> plays on you. As David Hume pointed out, long ago, it's all a figment
> of your imagination.
>
> And some systems are self-ordering as Prigogine show with his 1977
> Nobel Prize and in a way, the first great female mathematician,
> No-ether, okay, just kidding, Noether,

LOL...geek humor...

>laid the groundwork for
> Einstein's relativity with her theorems in abstract algebra.
>
> Tough brain stuff here but no god in site. Or on site.
>
> But I'm all ears. As Miller showed, put some what in a glass, and shoot
> a spark through it, and you've made life, or the building blocks of
> such. Right?
>

Maybe. Maybe not. Just because we cannot replicate it doesn't mean it
doesn't exist or didn't happen. I shot a hole-in-one once. Can't do
it again. Ok, bad anology as others can. But I think you know what I
am saying. Many things only exist/happen once.


> I see beauty. I don't see God. I see ugliness. Then I see God

I see God in both. It's all relative.

>
> I'll bet you were very young when you started believing in God, yes?

Nope. Actually I always questioned. I was raised to choose my own
religion. my Mom was a disenchanted Presbyterian Pagan. When I was
little, I used to play at a friend's house where there was Jesus stuff
all over the place - which I thought was pretty bizarre, even at age
5-6. I never bought into the whole Jesus thing. I was an atheist for
a number of years. Now I'm a theist-leaning agnostic. I don't t
pretend to answer - just gathering data. Like a good little scientist.

I have had a few experiences which have lead me to lean toward
believing. I defnintely believe in existence of the "spirit" or
"essence" after death.

-L.