Sentences with phrase «dancing on the head of pin»

They're far too busy with helping others, caring for others, providing food and comfort for others, and serving others to spend time worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As long as we're already talking fiction, could you do your next article about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'm unconvinced that any of you know how many angels dance on the head of a pin and really, I don't care.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The logic which religion uses is based on a belief, and is the equivalent of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I would personally like to see pixies dancing on the head of pin, but that won't happen either.

And again, this whole discussion largely devolves into «how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin».

I'd prefer not to read your blather, Russ, since all of it is pretty much about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

On a side note, I love to laugh out loud at this issue when Xtians argue over how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

Every time there was some ridiculous little quibble over theology or doctrine (like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin), there'd be a schism, and 2 different groups would go their separate ways, each one convinced it had a lock on God's absolute truth and that their opponents with heathen heretic apostate sinners doomed (DOOMED, I tell you!)

People who waste time arguing about it are like arguing with those asserting angels dance on the head of a pin.

End the ugly acts of submission and the debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We may not sit around endlessly discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we do spend our lives on religious and supposedly Biblical discussions and investigations of similar import.

The bickering, name calling, and argumentation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does not draw people to Christ.

Why do you continue to try to prove that a certain number of angels can dance on the head of a pin?

They don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's latest action regarding fuel discounts («Coles, Woolies fight ACCC over fuel discounts», AFR, February 25) is about as relevant as determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But rather than wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, try to think about how many times Angels have made the cover (10 times for the L.A. / California / Anaheim Angels, two times for jockey Angel Cordero and another four for Elle Macpherson).

The shadow education secretary then either needs to dance on the head of a pin or disown Burnham.

But there is a more vexing concern for some of us, even those of us used to imponderables such as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin: where do you find a busload of nuns?

The real battle over the reform of American public education will not be depend on whether Beltway players and the outlets that cover and opine about them (including this publication) argue about the equivalent of how many angels dance on the heads of pins.

It might see as though I'm arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Which side would you weigh in on (or are we arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin)?

He has presented his work in many solo exhibitions in the historical Athenian gallery «Nees Morphes» and his work has been included in numerous group shows, among which are the emblematic exhibition Apperto 93 in the XVL Venice Biennial in 1993 and the 2nd Athens Biennial Heaven (How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin, curated by Christopher Marinos) in 2009.

C'm on, an infinite number of sky fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

Scientist love to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We can now argue about whether the GH warming has reached «equilibrium» over the past 150 years or whether there is still some GH warming «hidden in the pipeline», but IMO that is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The precise amount of warming will depend on climate sensitivity and the exotic feedbacks that are factored in, but I think you are dancing on the head of a pin with your comments -

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Meanwhile, out here in the real world there has been no warming for nearly 18 years (according to RSS no stat sig warming for 26 years in fact) and as far as I can count the number of papers desperately making contradictory excuses for that now exceeds 30, and the «climate scientists» are still trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin — which is becoming increasingly obvious to all and sundry, except the aforesaid «climate scientists» of course.

Does that peer reviewer really see accuracy vs. precision the same as pondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The fact is that ordinary folk have contributed billions maybe trillions in the pursuit of trying to understand why or how our climate behaves and have failed dismally everyone involved is still dancing on the head of a pin with no end in sight.

«uncertainty» equals no consensus but consensus is not proof this is just one classic example of just more humans trying to justify their existence and no the IPCC Judith Curry and everyone else involved continue dancing on the head of a pin whilst Mr Ordinary gets his wealth sequestrated in order to pay for these guys to indulge in their pet hobby when the person who is making their life possible derives no benefit whatsoever except higher and higher energy bills, more restrictions on their ability to travel whilst again the lauded few get to travel across the planet 1st class to tout their jaded theories of how what and where and all I hope and pray is that we get another five years of flat temperatures then you are all toast and in a great need of having to work for a living or get another hobby.

It's all angels dancing on the head of a pin, and complaining that NIC Card is redundant depends on a narrow lumpen version of the full story.

To get back to the main point - which at least you are addressing unlike some on this blog who are dancing on the head of a pin - if temperatures are showing a decline over the last decade or more - as was demonstrated in the Met office links - surely that demonstrates that there has been «no warming».

All this discussion about models and data make me think of the arguments in Medieval Times of how many angles can dance on the head of a pin when no one knew how big the head of a pin was.

reminiscent of the medieval theologians arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... or the ever more complicated epicycles of the ptolemaic astronomers....

Ask me how many stars there are in the sky, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Once religion is injected, they are incapable of intellectual doubt and committed to the modern equivalent of calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and condemnation of heretics, preferably by burning.

Which begs the question: how many pinheads can dance on the head of a pin?

In this current debate angels dancing on the heads of pins come to mind in as much the numbers being employed by both sides to prove their point are almost indistinguishable from the other.

This is not intended to be a slight on nic and Judith's excellent paper but we are in danger of dancing on the heads of pins.

Arguing about whether the 24 - year period 1988 - 2011 is «statistically significant» sounds to me a lot like the debates on «How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?»

The reason I have become so obsessed with «global warming» in the last few years is not because I'm particularly interested in the «how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin» non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine.

If the simple 60/20 cyclical model breaks down when extended prior to 1850 (or a century or two before that if you posit a slow rise from the 1600s), then present divergence is yet another angel dancing on the head of a pin in a world gone mad.

FWIW — as an admitted statistically - challenged observer of this «debate» for more than five years — my impression of Gavin Schmidt (and his various and sundry pronouncements, pontifications and prognostications) is that his words have — more often than not — resembled those of a self - declared «angel» dancing on the head of a pin.

Before we get too bogged down in theological problems such as calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (or climate modellers on an ice floe) perhaps we should look at what the data actually show.

This is a really fun discussion, not only are we arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we're debating if more than half, most, a preponderance, a majority, the largest part, a greater part, nearly all, etc. etc. of the angels are dancing to a «man made warming» beat or «something else» (hip - hop maybe?).

So just exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

One day all these suspect and ill advised and suspected as mainly spurious «adjustments» to the global and national temperature records and all the arguments going on about it will be looked upon as today's stupidity equivalent of the medieval thesis of «How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?».