Re: Drake's equation

On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
<v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:
 

jillery wrote:
>
           [...]

 
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
 
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
 

Be aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
>

Nope, Clip-n-Snark is about it.

That said, it's been noted that all the terms in the Drake
Equation beyond the third are sheer conjecture based on zero
evidence; IOW, WAGs, not even SWAGs.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov