Just relegate us now...

[A-Ro]

Of course, a quantum interpretation of sound would create a probablistic granularity in that wave, which (while re-introducing our cat into the equation) would point to questions about what &quotexist&quot means in this context.

Exactly.

How can sound exist if there is no-one to give it a name?

Oh, no A-Ro, I am not agreeing with you. Just questioning a pure wave interpretation.

I never assumed you were, You just didn't see the [sardonic] [/sardonic] tags which were there because I hadn't/haven't got a clue what you were on about.

The two lines should probably have been put in separate posts.

[boris]

If we take a Chomskian view of synactic structures &quotcoded&quot into the DNA, and then assume that the building blocks of DNA were available before &quothumans&quot, then it might be possible to argue that there were apostrophes before people ...

I think you're stretching Chomsky's theory to several stages beyond breaking point. Plus you should know better than to make assumptions.

However, I'm quite prepared to accept the existence of D'NA, if only because I happen to quite like Chomsky (mainly because the linguistic establishment don't).

[x586]

Any discussion of this nature cannot proceed further without due consideration of the De Broglie hypothesis (you will remember, from your 'O' level physics classes, Dirac's Constant [ h-bar = h / (2pi) ]. Please refresh your memories before making further postings on light spectroscopy.

Additionally, some discussion of olfactory signals might be appropriate to the topic, perhaps where they relate to feral cat populations (e.g. Portsmouth naval dockyard studies) plus, of course, consideration of free-running neural oscillators (probability / binary discrimination / Lundberg phases and so on).

In a quite unrelated bit of reading, I came upon this quote (considering Hallowe'en iconography in the middle ages), which has direct parallels with a period of our history:

&quotVarious local women came forward to testify that Kemp had used his familiars to make either them or their children ill&quot.

[A-Ro]

Of course, a quantum interpretation of sound would create a probablistic granularity in that wave, which (while re-introducing our cat into the equation) would point to questions about what &quotexist&quot means in this context.

Exactly.

How can sound exist if there is no-one to give it a name?

Names are just words invested to enable communication and description and are irrelevant to existence.

By your argument, before human's evolved, the Earth didn't exist. But patently it did.

Sound is in the mind of the perceiver.

[GodalmingYellow]

By your argument, before human's evolved, the Earth didn't exist.

Nor did apostrophes.

[poke tongue tag][/poke tongue tag]

[A-Ro]

I think that you can use some of Wittgenstein's ideas to prove that the sound doesn't exist.

If something is a sound then it cannot logically be private, if a sound is private then it cannot be a sound. Therefore if something is so private as not to be heard then it cannot be a sound or should at least drop out of consideration as irrellevant.

A bit like the major part of this thread.

[GodalmingYellow]

Exactly.

How can sound exist if there is no-one to give it a name?

Names are just words invested to enable communication and description and are irrelevant to existence.

By your argument, before human's evolved, the Earth didn't exist. But patently it did.

Sound is in the mind of the perceiver.

Are you trying to tell us that you are hearing voices in your head A-Ro?

[A-Ro]

Hmmm, is this the same GY that is usually so quick to complain when responses get personal?

[SmileyMan]

Hmmm, is this the same GY that is usually so quick to complain when responses get personal?

No, you imagine that one...

The fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation so easily descends into complete nonsense when you scale it up to the macroscopic is why the Many Worlds Interpretation feels so much more intuitive to me. But better brains than mine can't decide on the difference, so I'll reserve final judgement for now.

Back on topic: f**k

[A-Ro]

Hmmm, is this the same GY that is usually so quick to complain when responses get personal?

No, you imagine that one...

The fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation so easily descends into complete nonsense when you scale it up to the macroscopic is why the Many Worlds Interpretation feels so much more intuitive to me. But better brains than mine can't decide on the difference, so I'll reserve final judgement for now.

Back on topic: f**k

???

And yes.

[Snake]

Hmmm, is this the same GY that is usually so quick to complain when responses get personal?

No, you imagine that one...

The fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation so easily descends into complete nonsense when you scale it up to the macroscopic is why the Many Worlds Interpretation feels so much more intuitive to me. But better brains than mine can't decide on the difference, so I'll reserve final judgement for now.

Back on topic: f**k

???

And yes.

Yes indeed.

We have the biggest gate receipts in Division IV (forget Bradford with their £7 tickets) but Accrington Stanley (average gate 1679) have more points than Us and Barnet (who are nailed on for one of the relegation places) have only one point less. So why?

Maybe Wilder has too much pressure on him to succeed, maybe someone (not just the Stadium rent) is not giving him all that big a percentage of OUR money and is sending it Up North instead, or maybe he’s just like a kid in a sweet shop. Either way his outburst on Radio Oxford post-match was well out of order as only the angry folk will call for his head when we are just 8 points from a play-off place. He’s got to learn to not do that again.

It wasn’t all that long ago we were worried that Wilder would leave Us and manage the Blades (but not any more), so at least that’s one consolation as he quite clearly needs more experience at this level in terms of handling the immediate reactions and expectations of some supporters.

[amershamwrighty]

I agree with you, Snake - he was unnecessarily 'chippy' on RadOx, and not for the first time. He could do with a bit of PR advice, but was probably provoked by some of the stupid comments coming from some individuals (see my posting on the 'blip' thread).

I preferred the straighforwardness of Mad Dog's response at half time to someone who had a go - 'Fuck off'.

[Pie Eater]

A note for Mr Wilder, it just may improve your management skills.

How do you deal with criticism? I think the first reaction for most of us is to defend ourselves, or worse yet to lash back.
And yet, while criticism can be taken as hurtful and demoralizing, it can also be viewed in a positive way: it is honesty, and it can spur us to do better. It’s an opportunity to improve.

[A-Ro]

A note for Mr Wilder, it just may improve your management skills.

How do you deal with criticism? I think the first reaction for most of us is to defend ourselves, or worse yet to lash back.
And yet, while criticism can be taken as hurtful and demoralizing, it can also be viewed in a positive way: it is honesty, and it can spur us to do better. It’s an opportunity to improve.

Starting from a clean slate that is a reasonable comment, however CW has been there and done that and I don't think this leopard is about to change its spots any time soon.

[Baboo]

A quick rough calculation of points picked up from the last 6 games
Oxford 3
Barnet 4
Gills 5
Northampton 7
Lincoln 8
Hereford 10

Who are the relegation candidates now?

That is really, really quite worrying

Even more worrying now.
Barnet 4 Cobblers 1
Lincoln 3 Hereford 1

I suppose the eternal optimists will see this as pointing to inevitable relegation for Northampton and Hereford.