OT: Some images I played with
Snit
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>
> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>
>
>
Are you number 6?
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Wally
0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Snit wrote
> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>
>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>
>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Are you number 6?
If he is I hope 'The Village' has more luck getting information out of him
than I have! ;)
Snit
0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net on 3/27/06 11:06 PM:
> Snit wrote
> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>
>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>
>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Are you number 6?
I am not a number, I am a free man.
BusyGuy
Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Snit wrote
> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>
> > Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
> >
> > http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
> >
> > Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Are you number 6?
I was looking at number 12 and thinking how like Patrick McGoohan the
guy looks. Anyone old enough and "British" enough to remember that
brilliant TV series "The Prisoner" will ask "Are you number one?"
+++++
Wow. For fun I did a Google. The guy _is_ Patrick McGoohan !!!
BusyGuy
<wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Ok so I wasn't alone. Interesting.
Still, i have to ask myself: why did this Snit guy go to the trouble?
Why bother? The alterations are not particularly good and certainly not
funny.
Snit
280320061642275105%Bus...@Work.ru on 3/28/06 5:42 AM:
> In article <0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net>, Lefty
> Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote
>> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>>
>>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>>
>>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you number 6?
>
> I was looking at number 12 and thinking how like Patrick McGoohan the
> guy looks.
Number 12?
> Anyone old enough and "British" enough to remember that
> brilliant TV series "The Prisoner" will ask "Are you number one?"
>
> +++++
>
> Wow. For fun I did a Google. The guy _is_ Patrick McGoohan !!!
>
> <http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/>
Yes, it is a scene from the Prisoner. I did add the "6", as the original
did not have him wearing it, but I figured it would help people to "get it".
Well, those that get it anyway. :)
Snit
> In article <C04F0D83.2000%wa...@wally.world.net>, Wally
> <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>> On 28/3/06 2:06 PM, in article
>> 0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
>> <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote
>>> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>>>
>>>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>>>
>>>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>>
>>> Are you number 6?
>>
>> If he is I hope 'The Village' has more luck getting information out of him
>> than I have! ;)
>
> Ok so I wasn't alone. Interesting.
Wally seems to get the Prisoner reference, but his humor here is subtle: I
have been trying to get him to answer several questions recently that he has
been running from:
* Did he believe anyone would be able to beat Josh's challenge?
* Will he condemn Steve's lie that has been repeatedly quoted to him
(and linked)?
* Does he understand that when I tell him incest and sex are so different
as to be considered synonymous only by perverts that this is just
basic common sense?
Wally will *always* run from these questions, obfuscate, and lie. It is
just what he does.
> Still, i have to ask myself: why did this Snit guy go to the trouble?
> Why bother? The alterations are not particularly good and certainly not
> funny.
You are welcome to your opinion. I find it interesting to see which groups
of people are more negative toward others; one of the thing things I have
found is that CSMA seems to bring out the negative in people. I get -
mostly - very positive comments elsewhere, but here people seem to want to
put others down. I look forward to seeing you show me up by posting better
"alterations". Keep in mind that Fark does many such competitions so the
time one has to work on them is short if you want to get your image viewed
at all.
I would love to see others from CSMA post to Fark and see what they can do.
There are, no doubt, some who would be able to do quite well. Others,
however, would not. I suspect it is the latter half that is the most
critical.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> stated in post
> 0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net on 3/27/06 11:06 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote
> > (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
> >
> >> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
> >>
> >> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Are you number 6?
>
> I am not a number, I am a free man.
Not likely as you do _claim_ to be married. :(
--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-3B6AAD.08...@news.east.earthlink.net on 3/28/06
6:03 AM:
> In article <C04E7522.49E63%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> stated in post
>> 0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net on 3/27/06 11:06 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote
>>> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>>>
>>>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>>>
>>>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you number 6?
>>
>> I am not a number, I am a free man.
>
> Not likely as you do _claim_ to be married. :(
LOL! Ok, for once you were funny.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <280320061642275105%Bus...@Work.ru>):
> In article <0001HW.C04E2E85...@news.verizon.net>, Lefty
> Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote
>> (in article <C04E161A.49E2A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>):
>>
>>> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
>>>
>>> Curious if anyone has any non-trollish comments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you number 6?
>
> I was looking at number 12 and thinking how like Patrick McGoohan the
> guy looks.
Duh. Of course it's him.
> Anyone old enough and "British" enough to remember that
> brilliant TV series "The Prisoner" will ask "Are you number one?"
I was trying to be funny, but it obviously failed for you.
Hint: The Prisoner was shown in the US as well.
Wally
<Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
And do you remember which series spawned 'The Prisoner' also Patrick
McGoohan?
Ans: Danger Man!
Here's one for you ....a series reasonably similar and same time period,
where the sidekick to the main character was nearly always lonely? ;)
The main character was in real life a damn fine singer too.
Any idea?
Wally
<Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
Probably best not to ask! just lurk awhile you'll get the picture (no pun
intended) real quick! ;-)
GreyCloud
>>Still, i have to ask myself: why did this Snit guy go to the trouble?
>>Why bother? The alterations are not particularly good and certainly not
>>funny.
>
>
> Probably best not to ask! just lurk awhile you'll get the picture (no pun
> intended) real quick! ;-)
>
That's what I should have done a long time ago. Big mistake.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
BusyGuy
<wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one for you ....a series reasonably similar and same time period,
> where the sidekick to the main character was nearly always lonely? ;)
>
> The main character was in real life a damn fine singer too.
>
> Any idea?
>
Yup. Edward Woodwaqrd in Callan
BusyGuy
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > Still, i have to ask myself: why did this Snit guy go to the trouble?
> > Why bother? The alterations are not particularly good and certainly not
> > funny.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion. I find it interesting to see which groups
> of people are more negative toward others; one of the thing things I have
> found is that CSMA seems to bring out the negative in people. I get -
> mostly - very positive comments elsewhere, but here people seem to want to
> put others down. I look forward to seeing you show me up by posting better
> "alterations". Keep in mind that Fark does many such competitions so the
> time one has to work on them is short if you want to get your image viewed
> at all.
>
> I would love to see others from CSMA post to Fark and see what they can do.
> There are, no doubt, some who would be able to do quite well. Others,
> however, would not. I suspect it is the latter half that is the most
> critical.
Sorry I wasn't trying to put you down as a mean-spirited exercise or
for the sake of being negative. I was just observing that I thought the
work was a time-eater for minimum satisfaction. Of course, if you
personally enjoyed doing it then that's fine.
I spend all day every day locked in front of Photoshop altering (that
is, editing) photos for a world-famous photographer so I do know how
many beans make five in that department but, to be honest, I wouldn't
invest time in modifying photos for amusement.
I suppose you've seen the x-rated things that people post in Sandra's
group?
BusyGuy
>
> Here's one for you ....a series reasonably similar and same time period,
> where the sidekick to the main character was nearly always lonely? ;)
>
> The main character was in real life a damn fine singer too.
>
> Any idea?
>
...and, while we're indulging in a little off-topic nostalgia, can i
say how much I renjoyed two other British series that I think beat the
hell out of most stuff on tv today: "The Planemakers/The Power Game"
and "The Main Chance"
Snit
> In article <C04E8054.49E71%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
> <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> Still, i have to ask myself: why did this Snit guy go to the trouble?
>>> Why bother? The alterations are not particularly good and certainly not
>>> funny.
>>
>> You are welcome to your opinion. I find it interesting to see which groups
>> of people are more negative toward others; one of the thing things I have
>> found is that CSMA seems to bring out the negative in people. I get -
>> mostly - very positive comments elsewhere, but here people seem to want to
>> put others down. I look forward to seeing you show me up by posting better
>> "alterations". Keep in mind that Fark does many such competitions so the
>> time one has to work on them is short if you want to get your image viewed
>> at all.
>>
>> I would love to see others from CSMA post to Fark and see what they can do.
>> There are, no doubt, some who would be able to do quite well. Others,
>> however, would not. I suspect it is the latter half that is the most
>> critical.
>
> Sorry I wasn't trying to put you down as a mean-spirited exercise or
> for the sake of being negative. I was just observing that I thought the
> work was a time-eater for minimum satisfaction. Of course, if you
> personally enjoyed doing it then that's fine.
I do enjoy it. I also use them as motivators to have some of my students
learn Photoshop.
>
> I spend all day every day locked in front of Photoshop altering (that
> is, editing) photos for a world-famous photographer so I do know how
> many beans make five in that department but, to be honest, I wouldn't
> invest time in modifying photos for amusement.
If you do as you say I have little doubt you are more skilled than I am. I
am quite proud of some of my 'shop work, but I have no illusion that I am a
pro.
>
> I suppose you've seen the x-rated things that people post in Sandra's
> group?
No... do not search for much x rated material online.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
For the material that you would be interested in I doubt there would be
'much'!
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
You give a whole new meaning to 'dead links' Snit!. ;=(
--
"And I cry when there is nobody who understands that."- Snit
Wally
<Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
Got it in one!
Tim Crowley
Snit wrote:
> Some more "Farked" images - and the originals I modified.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/fark/
Those are pretty fun.
Snit
C05027C8.2194%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/28/06 9:02 PM:
Let us examine your post, Wally:
I responded to a comment about X rated material by stating I do not search
for much X rated material online. Based on *that* comment you jumped to the
thoughts of necrophilia. You then pulled quotes of mine out of context -
one would hope you do so knowingly being that I have made it clear
specifically to you that I find such things repulsive.
There are two possibilities I see for your actions:
1) You really believe your comments which proves you are unable to
understand what you read.
2) You are spewing the above dishonest accusations for my *honest*
commenting on your believe that sex and incest are - as you
say - synonymous. I have repeatedly pointed out how repulsive
I find such a view: to me the concepts are so different as to
*never* be seen as synonymous by anyone other than a pervert.
It can be, of course, a combination of those two things. Just so you know,
Wally, I am *not* interested in your view of which it is. Nor, of course,
am I interested in your dishonest denials and excuses. The bottom line is
you have clearly shown yourself to be more interested in trolling than in
speaking honestly and honorably... the above is just one example of your
poor behavior.
Again, to be very, very clear - so clear hopefully even you can understand
it: no matter what perversions you attribute to me you are, of course,
lying. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated, about sex and
incest, that you believe they are synonymous. Given the chance you have
opted *not* to back away from that claim - and have repeatedly stated that
when I have quoted you on this issue I have *not* done what you do above and
dishonestly pull the quotes out of context and come to dishonest
conclusions. You are being dishonest about my views.
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Even you have admitted the above is representative of your view. So there
we have it: you have *again* shown yourself to be unable to utter accurate
and honest assessments of me, I have been honest about you, and you come
across as the troll. As is the norm, the Google record supports my views
and not yours.
Snit
1143608699....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 3/28/06 10:04 PM:
Thank you.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> for much X rated material online. Based on *that* ......
......and my knowledge of what you have admitted to as the quote clearly
shows I indicated why you would not have much luck finding more than a
little of what you fancy!
If I am wrong on that point and you have found more than I suspected
existed.....so be it, in this instance I am willing to take your word for it
Snit, proof is not necessary!
--
"For the record: I am torn on the incest question."-Snit
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> There are two possibilities I see for your actions:
Therefore it is safe to assume that you have missed the obvious!
> 1) You really believe your comments which proves you are unable to
> understand what you read.
Or that you cannot understand what I write! which would account for why you
attribute so much to me that is not far short of pure fantasy,
> 2) You are spewing the above dishonest accusations
Which accusations Snit?
> for my *honest*
You misspelled dishonest!
> commenting on your believe that sex and incest are - as you
> say - synonymous.
Yup! just as I thought there is the 'obvious'!
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Notice how all my comments indicate that I believe incest is synonymous with
sex, why do you continue to claim that I believe or have stated that I
believe that sex is synonymous with incest as you do again in this post?
Snit wrote...
"...commenting on your believe that sex and incest are - as you
say - synonymous."-Snit
I guess I know the answer to that Snit and it lies in the fact that you have
stated that in such a statement as that above the order whether it be
incest-sex or sex-incest makes no difference to you, the sad thing is that I
really believe that you cannot see a fundamental difference between the two
that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your belief Snit.
> I have repeatedly pointed out how repulsive
> I find such a view: to me the concepts are so different as to
> *never* be seen as synonymous by anyone other than a pervert.
I see that you still can't get your head around how synonymous does not mean
'the same as' Snit?
> It can be, of course, a combination of those two things.
Or indeed neither!
> Just so you know,
> Wally, I am *not* interested in your view of which it is.
Careful Pinocchio!. ;)
> Nor, of course,
> am I interested in your dishonest denials and excuses.
> The bottom line is
> you have clearly shown yourself to be more interested in trolling than in
> speaking honestly and honorably... the above is just one example of your
> poor behavior.
>
> Again, to be very, very clear - so clear hopefully even you can understand
> it: no matter what perversions you attribute to me you are, of course,
> lying.
It's a Wolf, it's a Wolf! LOL!
> You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated, about sex and
> incest, that you believe they are synonymous.
Ooop's! you've twisted the order again Snit, that is a bad habit you have
there! ;)
> Given the chance you have
> opted *not* to back away from that claim
There are no doubt many claims that I have *never* made that I have yet to
back away from! does that surprise you?
>- and have repeatedly stated that
> when I have quoted you on this issue I have *not* done what you do above and
> dishonestly pull the quotes out of context and come to dishonest
> conclusions.
You stating that I consider sex to be synonymous with incest, instead of my
actual view that being that incest is synonymous with sex is that the
epitome of honesty for you Snit?....really? ROTFLMAO!
> You are being dishonest about my views.
Not at all I am truly appalled that you can state that you would have less
of a legal problem with having sex with a corpse simply because you had
procured prior permission, if the act wasn't distasteful enough you consider
premeditation somehow lessens the act!
> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> Even you have admitted the above is representative of your view.
They certainly are... until they receive your normal creative
interpretations!
> So there
> we have it: you have *again* shown yourself to be unable to utter accurate
> and honest assessments of me, I have been honest about you, and you come
> across as the troll. As is the norm, the Google record supports my views
> and not yours.
And yet this same google record will show that I have quoted you accurately
and stated your views as you have stated them, and yet you continue even in
this last post of yours to lie about my views? ...go figure!
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Snit
>>>> No... do not search for much x rated material online.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For the material that you would be interested in I doubt there would be
>>> 'much'!
>>>
>>> "Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
>>> they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
>>> would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
>>>
>>> You give a whole new meaning to 'dead links' Snit!. ;=(
>>
>> Let us examine your post, Wally:
>>
>> I responded to a comment about X rated material by stating I do not search
> ......and my knowledge of what you have admitted to as the quote clearly
> shows I indicated why you would not have much luck finding more than a
> little of what you fancy!
I am not interested in your fantasies of what I "fancy". Really, Wally, why
would you even fantasize about my sex life? The mere thought makes my
stomach churn.
>
> If I am wrong on that point and you have found more than I suspected
> existed.....so be it, in this instance I am willing to take your word for it
> Snit, proof is not necessary!
I am happy you take my word for the above - but the Google record already
proves me right.
Snit
Do you deny that you find the concepts of incest and sex to be synonymous?
I do not care about your semantic games... just answer the question.
Chances are you will play all sorts of games - and continue to lie about my
views. It is just what you do.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
This quote is no fantasy Snit (but I do understand why you would wish it
were)...
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
I am fascinated that anyone could have such a view! and do remember Snit
that it was you not I that mentioned "fantasies" why is that?
> The mere thought makes my stomach churn.
Yet these quotes of yours leave you totally unaffected?
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
----------
"For the record: I am torn on the incest question."-Snit
----------
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
----------
Perhaps you should care less about what people think of you and more about
what you think of yourself?
>>
>> If I am wrong on that point and you have found more than I suspected
>> existed.....so be it, in this instance I am willing to take your word for it
>> Snit, proof is not necessary!
>
> I am happy you take my word for the above - but the Google record already
> proves me right.
The Google record certainly does show that you appear to get more out of
these subjects than appears healthy, for example....
Snit wrote...
"Of course incest is not merely "sexual activity or behavior leading to
it"-Snit
You never did elaborate on what more you found incest to be Snit did you?
Can you now?
And now you appear happy that I take your word for the fact that you have
found more distasteful material than I would have expected there to be.
And you really think that that proves you right Snit?....If you say so ;=(
--
"My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You have quoted me above, the same quotes that you have used many times
before Snit and not once have I found fault in those quotes, are you
admitting that after all this time you really do not understand them? LOL!
Read them again...
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Can you still not see a common theme there Snit? LOL!
> Chances are you will play all sorts of games - and continue to lie about my
> views. It is just what you do.
Your views are well documented Snit especially those views that prove that
you have no idea what to be synonymous means or doesn't mean.
Snit wrote...
"to me the concepts are so different as to *never* be seen as
synonymous"-Snit
Something cannot be synonymous with something else simply because they are
"so different" good grief Snit get a grip!
How on earth can you ask me to take you seriously when you ask...
"Do you deny that you find the concepts of incest and sex to be
synonymous?"-Snit
...when you can't understand quotes that *you* keep producing that answer
the question perfectly, and also continue to show that you have no idea of
the meaning of the word which is fundamental to the question?
Of course you will claim that I am playing some sort of game Snit, but in
truth I take your ignorance in this matter more seriously than you do!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Yes, which clearly infers that you do search for some "X rated material".
> Based on *that* comment you jumped to the thoughts of necrophilia.
How do you propose to support your idea that his jumping "to the
thoughts of necrophilia" was "Based on *that* comment"? As I see it, it
is unquestionably based on a previous quote of text you had written to
usenet... a quote which he provided here for you!
> You then pulled quotes of mine out of context -
You're just compounding one mistake on top of another. The context Wally
addressed was clearly that of "X-rated material", a topic brought forth
in the discussion by BusyGuy... Wally wrote:
"For the material that you would be interested in..."
^^^^^^^^
Photos/videos of acts of necrophilia would generally be considered as
such "material".
> one would hope you do so knowingly being that I have made it clear
> specifically to you that I find such things repulsive.
The idea of it being less of a "legal" problem (for you) with no regards
for health concerns is what most people would find repulsive in my
opinion... but hey, to each his own.
> There are two possibilities I see for your actions:
>
> 1) You really believe your comments which proves you are unable to
> understand what you read.
Well, it was *you* that said you'd have less of a legal problem, wasn't
it? What's not to understand? You apparently find it legally agreeable
for people to have sex with corpses if they have prior consent. What's
repulsive is entirely subjective... it's a safe bet most people would
not hold your view on this and would consider it repulsive to the point
where they'd outlaw it... as most every societies has done. There simply
is no "context" for which this idea can be misconstrued; you either
wrote it this bizarre idea or you didn't... google shows you did write
it. Are you going to claim that it was perhaps someone that snuck into
your house and used your computer again that wrote it?
> 2) You are spewing the above dishonest accusations for my *honest*
> commenting on your believe that sex and incest are - as you
> say - synonymous. I have repeatedly pointed out how repulsive
> I find such a view: to me the concepts are so different as to
> *never* be seen as synonymous by anyone other than a pervert.
Snit, it was you that provided me a definition that stated "sex" and
"sexual activity" are the same thing. Are you contending that "incest"
is not a "sexual activity"? Obviously you are... but you keep running
from answering this simple question. Why is that? Do you still not truly
understand that "sex" is a broad category under which "incest" is but a
subset? Apparently you don't because you have also repeatedly insisted
that "sex" and "sex crimes" are not synonymous in *any* way. How is it
possible to commit a "sex crime" without engaging in some form of
(criminalized) "sex"? More to the point... are you aware that some
societies outlaw things like oral or anal sex, or sex with married
people? You should be, I've explained it to you often enough. As these
activities are "sex crimes" in such societies, are they not "sex"?
According to your logic, this is apparently the case. This is law
worship taken to the extreme.
> It can be, of course, a combination of those two things. Just so you know,
> Wally, I am *not* interested in your view of which it is. Nor, of course,
> am I interested in your dishonest denials and excuses.
You appear to only be interested in running away from things you can't
intelligently and logically discuss... things for which you have no
answer as you've backed yourself into that corner.
> The bottom line is
... you are still hiding in the corner named denial? Yes, it's *that*
obvious.
(snip Snit's circus)
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
As it is you that originally brought up the topic... and you who is
continually obsessed with the topic, it is you who is in need of
clarification here. You provided this newsgroup with a definition of the
word "sex" that stated "sex" is the same thing as a "sexual activity".
Is incest *not* a "sexual activity"?
> I do not care about your semantic games... just answer the question.
Indeed... can you answer this simple question without semantic games?
> Chances are you will play all sorts of games - and continue to lie about my
> views. It is just what you do.
And I say you are projecting and will very likely do exactly as you just
claimed for Wally.
Snit runs to his corner of denial in 3...2...1...
Snit
I am *still* not interested in your fantasizes about my sexuality nor your
semantic games.
You are *still* lying about me and I am *still* telling the truth about you.
The Google record, of course, is on my side and not yours.
Your circus is getting old. Keep in mind how this silliness started.
Elizabeth jumped to the topic of incest in a bizarre way, so I responded:
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
You jumped in and stated such things as:
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
You have agreed that those statements of yours are honest representations of
your view. Do you now take that back?
Snit
> You have quoted me above, the same quotes that you have used many times
> before Snit and not once have I found fault in those quotes, are you
> admitting that after all this time you really do not understand them? LOL!
>
> Read them again...
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> Can you still not see a common theme there Snit? LOL!
You and I differ on this, as is stated in my .sig.
I find your view repulsive. The fact that you have no defense for it other
than to lie about me and my views and try to make me seem as perverted as
you are is very telling - some part of you knows how repulsive your views
are. Read the third bullet in my .sig: and know that it is the view
non-perverts hold. The fact you state your disagreement is proof you are a
pervert.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C050BA95.2F60%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/29/06 7:28 AM:
>
>> You have quoted me above, the same quotes that you have used many times
>> before Snit and not once have I found fault in those quotes, are you
>> admitting that after all this time you really do not understand them? LOL!
>>
>> Read them again...
>>
>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>>
>> Can you still not see a common theme there Snit? LOL!
>
> You and I differ on this, as is stated in my .sig.
NO! Your sig shows we are in complete agreement!...you have absolutely no
idea what to be synonymous actually means.
> I find your view repulsive. The fact that you have no defense for it other
> than to lie about me and my views and try to make me seem as perverted as
> you are is very telling
As telling as using your actual quotes to achieve it? :=)
> some part of you knows how repulsive your views
> are. Read the third bullet in my .sig: and know that it is the view
> non-perverts hold. The fact you state your disagreement is proof you are a
> pervert.
Unfortunately for you there isn't one definition of incest that agrees with
you Snit.
And I think you will find that those that deny the clear link between incest
and sex do so more for their own conscience than for any sound reason!
just like you Snit when asked what incest is if it isn't about sex they are
lost for an answer just as you are right now!
You stated ...
"Of course incest is not merely "sexual activity or behavior leading to
it"-Snit
Yet when asked to explain that comment you can't, why is that Snit?
Because for whatever reason you have the need to convince yourself that its
true? If you believe it you should be able to explain yourself! why can't
you?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C050B388.2F5E%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/29/06 6:58 AM:
(snip)
> > And you really think that that proves you right Snit?....If you say so ;=(
>
> I am *still* not interested in
... dealing with the realities you have created on this ng? Yes,
everyone knows this.
> your fantasizes about my sexuality nor your
> semantic games.
>
> You are *still* lying about me and I am *still* telling the truth about you.
> The Google record, of course, is on my side and not yours.
Yeah... and you're a fully accredited "teacher", too. LOL!
>
> Your circus is getting old. Keep in mind how this silliness started.
> Elizabeth jumped to the topic of incest in a bizarre way,
A "bizarre way"? Oh... you mean by reminding you that you had previously
made references to Elizabot and incest! Yeah... that "bizarre way". I
remember it well, so does google... which shows you making far more
references to the topic of incest than any 20 csma posters combined.
Sorry, Snit, but people continually pointing out your obsession with
incest doesn't count as them instigating a reference to it.
> so I responded:
>
> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> You jumped in and stated such things as:
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> You have agreed that those statements of yours are honest representations of
> your view. Do you now take that back?
Is incest a sexual activity, Snit? A simple yes or no will do.
BusyGuy
Wally...Snit...Steve...
I seem to have unintentionally stumbled into a long-running and intense
flame war. Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to stir anyone up.
I haven't _studied_ what you're arguing about but I did _glance_ at the
posts. Can I stick my nose in where it might not be wanted and offer a
small opinion?
Could it be that, once again, two (or more) reasonably nice guys with
much in common are arguing because each has a slightly differnet
understanding of some words in the language?
Could it be that there is not so much a difference of opinion about
whether or not "sex and incest are synonymous" as rather an unnoticed
disagreement about the meaning of the word "synonymous".
I haven't noticed anyone disagreeing that incest is sexual activity
between related persons. It may be more than just that but, in the
absence of sexual activity, perhaps we do not have a case of incest. In
my opinion, sexual activity is a prerequisite for an assertion of
incest.
Now look at the argument that sex is or is not "synonymous" with sexual
activity.
I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
incestuous. On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
incestuous activity does involve sex.
In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
an inseparable part of sex.
In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
synonymity.
What say you?
Tim Adams
wrote:
> Wow.
>
> Wally...Snit...Steve...
>
> I seem to have unintentionally stumbled into a long-running and intense
> flame war. Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to stir anyone up.
>
> I haven't _studied_ what you're arguing about but I did _glance_ at the
> posts. Can I stick my nose in where it might not be wanted and offer a
> small opinion?
>
> Could it be that, once again, two (or more) reasonably nice guys with
> much in common are arguing because each has a slightly differnet
> understanding of some words in the language?
>
> Could it be that there is not so much a difference of opinion about
> whether or not "sex and incest are synonymous" as rather an unnoticed
> disagreement about the meaning of the word "synonymous".
>
> I haven't noticed anyone disagreeing that incest is sexual activity
> between related persons. It may be more than just that but, in the
> absence of sexual activity, perhaps we do not have a case of incest. In
> my opinion, sexual activity is a prerequisite for an assertion of
> incest.
>
> Now look at the argument that sex is or is not "synonymous" with sexual
> activity.
>
> I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
> inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
Except it doesn't mean "identical"
synonymous adj
1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in the same language,
or being an alternative name for somebody or something
2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by another word
>
> I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
> incestuous. On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> incestuous activity does involve sex.
>
> In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
> an inseparable part of sex.
>
> In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
>
> As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
> synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
> synonymity.
>
> What say you?
--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-334D80.09...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
His definition is more akin to a synonym rather than synonymous Tim!
Steve Carroll
BusyGuy <Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
> Wow.
>
> Wally...Snit...Steve...
>
> I seem to have unintentionally stumbled into a long-running and intense
> flame war. Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to stir anyone up.
>
> I haven't _studied_ what you're arguing about but I did _glance_ at the
> posts. Can I stick my nose in where it might not be wanted and offer a
> small opinion?
>
> Could it be that, once again, two (or more) reasonably nice guys with
> much in common are arguing because each has a slightly differnet
> understanding of some words in the language?
>
> Could it be that there is not so much a difference of opinion about
> whether or not "sex and incest are synonymous" as rather an unnoticed
> disagreement about the meaning of the word "synonymous".
>
> I haven't noticed anyone disagreeing that incest is sexual activity
> between related persons. It may be more than just that but, in the
> absence of sexual activity, perhaps we do not have a case of incest. In
> my opinion, sexual activity is a prerequisite for an assertion of
> incest.
It's not just your opinion... given what the definitions of the words
mean, this is simple logic.
> Now look at the argument that sex is or is not "synonymous" with sexual
> activity.
I'm looking at the definition that Snit provided me... a definition
which defined "sex" as "sexual activity". I'd say that qualifies as
"synonymous" the way Snit *claims* to be using the word.
> I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
> inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
While it can, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that. Look at the example
used in this definition:
"Hollywood was synonymous with immorality"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synonymous
This infers *all* of Hollywood is immoral.
And look at this reference:
"Boston is synonymous with marathon"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=synonymous
Is Boston "one-and-the-same-thing" as is a marathon?
> I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
> incestuous.
No one ever did that I saw. Snit has disingenuously claimed it on our
behalf many times, though.
> On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> incestuous activity does involve sex.
Unquestionably, it does.
> In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
> an inseparable part of sex.
No one ever disagreed with this that I saw. Again, Snit has claimed it
on behalf of others due to his inability to comprehend what he has read.
> In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
This has been covered many times... again, just recently by me:
"Do you still not truly understand that "sex" is a broad category under
which "incest" is but a subset? Apparently you don't because you have
also repeatedly insisted that "sex" and "sex crimes" are not synonymous
in *any* way."
Snit is obviously using synonymous one way while simultaneously
attempting to bar acceptably alternative uses of the word from others
who are telling him there is a synonymity in existence. As the
dictionaries show, Snit is clearly wrong when he makes such absolute
statements. He does this kind of stupid shit all the time. He claims to
have a psych degree... I'm not so sure he even finished high school. His
problem is that he should not have chosen a word like synonymous and
attempted to argue for it restricted usage the way he has. End of story.
> As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
> synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
> synonymity.
>
> What say you?
I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
Snit
> Wow.
>
> Wally...Snit...Steve...
>
> I seem to have unintentionally stumbled into a long-running and intense
> flame war. Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to stir anyone up.
All it takes to "stir" Steve up is to comment on the truth. He *hates*
that, especially when I do it.
>
> I haven't _studied_ what you're arguing about but I did _glance_ at the
> posts. Can I stick my nose in where it might not be wanted and offer a
> small opinion?
Please feel free.
>
> Could it be that, once again, two (or more) reasonably nice guys with
> much in common are arguing because each has a slightly differnet
> understanding of some words in the language?
Most of Steve's debates are based on silly semantic games. The quote that
got him started on this one was this:
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
That was enough to get he and Wally in a tizzy! That comment was not
directed at either Steve or Wally.
> Could it be that there is not so much a difference of opinion about
> whether or not "sex and incest are synonymous" as rather an unnoticed
> disagreement about the meaning of the word "synonymous".
>
> I haven't noticed anyone disagreeing that incest is sexual activity
> between related persons. It may be more than just that but, in the
> absence of sexual activity, perhaps we do not have a case of incest. In
> my opinion, sexual activity is a prerequisite for an assertion of
> incest.
Of course.
>
> Now look at the argument that sex is or is not "synonymous" with sexual
> activity.
>
> I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
> inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
That or at least very similar. Correct.
>
> I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
> incestuous.
Steve has stated:
"Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
> On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> incestuous activity does involve sex.
Of course. Steve has repeatedly attributed a contrary straw man on me based
on his silly semantic games, but he is merely being dishonest and/or showing
how little he understands of what he reads.
>
> In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
> an inseparable part of sex.
Agreed.
>
> In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
This is very much what I have been telling Steve. I have repeatedly told
him:
A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole.
Incest is a subset of sex but not synonymous with it.
> As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
> synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
> synonymity.
>
> What say you?
I say you make complete sense. There is nothing of any consequence where I
disagree with your comments. I further would add that incest is so
different from sex as to not be considered synonymous by anyone other than
perverts.
Snit
noone-A5A4FB....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 8:24 AM:
As stated before, Steve's games are based on silly semantic BS. Keep in
mind the original context.
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Steve and Wally have not only been playing silly semantic games, they have
ignored the context of the original statement. That is just what they do.
Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating your games to yet another person. :)
If you want a real hoot, look at Steve's arguments against bullet number 4
in my .sig. He spent a lot more energy humiliating himself with that one!
Paul
BusyGuy <Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
I think it's a case of bilateral synonymity in Snit's case: if A is
synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A. Since "sex" is not
synonymous with "incest", "incest" must not be synonymous with "sex".
On the other hand, there are those who think in terms of unilateral
synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
--
Differentiation is an integral part of calculus.
Elizabot v2.0.3
> I think it's a case of bilateral synonymity in Snit's case: if A is
> synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A. Since "sex" is not
> synonymous with "incest", "incest" must not be synonymous with "sex".
>
> On the other hand, there are those who think in terms of unilateral
> synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
> A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
>
It's basically the case where incest -> sex when Wally wrote that incest
is synonymous with sex. Snit has decided that Wally was arguing incest =
sex. Snit has been arguing this for a year and a half. Don't expect Snit
to admit his error and back down now. He's dug himself in too deep.
Tim Adams
wrote:
Actually I was thinking it was more of a 'snit' definition.
>
> >>
> >> I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
> >> incestuous. On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> >> incestuous activity does involve sex.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
> >> an inseparable part of sex.
> >>
> >> In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
> >>
> >> As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
> >> synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
> >> synonymity.
> >>
> >> What say you?
--
Curieux
A flash from the past!
"Synonymity and the Analysis of Belief Sentences"...ring a bell?
A bit older than me...this was big in the early 50's
See, Hilary Putnam proposed a new theory of synonymity.
It's damn believable & prolly why most people prefer go nuts before
dealing with those types.
Yeah, Putnam spun the following ("the synonymity of (e) and (f) [below]
does not follow from that of "Hellene" and "Greek".)
I'll bet sharp dudes blew their brains out before they came close to
challenging Putnam.
Let's go: Putnam's argument:
1. Suppose we use "Greek" and "Hellene" as synonymous.
2. Then, on any current theory of synonymity,
(D)
All Greeks are Greeks
(D')
All Greeks are Hellenes are synonymous,
3. as are
(S)
Whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that
all Greeks are Greeks
(S')
Whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that
all Greeks are Hellenes.
4. Now, it is "quite likely" that nobody doubts that whoever
believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all Greeks are Greeks.
5. But it is "quite easy" to suppose that somebody does doubt
that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
Greeks are Hellenes, though Putnam, for one, does not doubt it.
6. Accordingly
(e)
Nobody doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are
Greeks believes that all Greeks are Greeks
and
(f)
Nobody doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are
Greeks believes that all Greeks are Hellenes
"may quite conceivably have opposite truth values and so
cannot be synonymous.
7. But on current theories of synonymity the synonymity of (e)
and (f) follows from that of "Greek" and "Hellene".
8. Consequently, given these current theories and additional
premises which seem beyond dispute, the assumption that "Greek" and
"Hellene" are synonymous leads to the conclusion that they are not
synonymous, -- and similarly in the case of any other pair of different
terms.
9. Thus, in terms of current theories of synonymity "there is
but one conclusion to which we can come: 'Greek' and 'Hellenes' are not
synonymous, and by the same argument neither are any two different terms".
=====
Yep, Putnam proposed a new theory of synonymity according to which the
synonymity of (e) and (f) does not follow from that of "Hellene" and
"Greek". entails the synonymity of
(D)
All Greeks are Greeks
and
(D'')
All Hellenes are Hellenes
it does not entail that of
(D)
All Greeks are Greeks
and
(D')
All Greeks are Hellenes.
------
Putnam had 'em spinning,,.
Michael
Steve Carroll
Curieux <G...@att.net> wrote:
You didn't actually get to the "meat of the thing:
To remedy this situation, Putnam proposes a new theory of synonymity
according to which the synonymity of (e) and (f) does not follow from
that of "Hellene" and "Greek". For whereas, on his theory, the
synonymity of "Hellenes" and "Greeks" entails the synonymity of
€ (D)
€ All Greeks are Greeks
and
€ (D'')
€ All Hellenes are Hellenes
it does not entail that of
€ (D)
€ All Greeks are Greeks
and
€ (D')
€ All Greeks are Hellenes.
Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
The key to the puzzle is the initial stipulation: "Suppose we use
'Hellene' . . . as a synonym for 'Greek'."6 All right, suppose we do --
Putnam, myself and the rest of us. It follows, of course, that
1. George is a Greek
and
1. George is a Hellene
asserted by us , necessarily have the same truth value. It follows
equally, though it may take a moment to appreciate the fact, that
1. Jones believes that George is a Greek.
and
1. Jones believes that George is a Hellene
asserted by us , necessarily have the same truth value. That is to say,
they necessarily have the same truth value if we are making a simple use
of "Greek" in the one case, and "Hellene" in the other, to formulate
what it is that we take Jones to believe. On this assumption, the truth
of (3) does not presuppose that Jones uses the word "Greek", nor the
truth of (4) that he uses the word "Hellene," nor the joint truth of (3)
and (4) that he has two words by which to refer to the inhabitants of
Greece. Consider now
1. Jones believes that all Greeks are Greeks
and
1. Jones believes that all Greeks are Hellenes.
Here we must be cautious. We must remind ourselves that sentence (6),
even as a sentence in our language may well have more than one
employment. Thus, when we use (6) to make a true assertion, who is using
the words "Greeks" and "Hellenes"? Are we making a straightforward (a
pure using use) use of these words to formulate what Jones believes, as
we would be making a straightforward use of "disease" and "curable" if
we said
1. Jones believes that all diseases are curable.
Or are we making a disguised mention (a covert mentioning use) of the
words "Greek" and "Hellene" as used by Jones , so that (6) is
equivalent, in effect, to
€ (6')
€ The sentence "all Greeks are Hellenes" as used by Jones expresses
something that he believes.
Clearly it is only on the former supposition that the question "Does the
synonymity of (5) and (6) as sentences in our language follow from the
synonymity, in our language, of 'Greek' and 'Hellene'?" is a relevant
question to ask.
It can, indeed, be doubted that anyone would ever use (6) without
intending to refer to Jones' use of "Greek" and "Hellene". But what can
be said is that if (6) is used as on the former supposition, -- if, that
is, our sole purpose in using (6) rather than (5) is the stylistic one
of not wishing to use the same word twice -- then any grounds we might
have for asserting (5) would equally be grounds for asserting (6) and
vice versa. Exactly the same considerations recur in the case of
1. Whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
Greeks are Greeks.
and
1. Whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
Greeks are Hellenes.
Putnam tells us that while he does not doubt that whoever believes that
all Greeks are Greeks believes that all Greeks are Hellenes, "It is easy
to suppose that someone does doubt this." But it should now be clear
that it is easy to suppose this only if one is using (9), and in
particular the phrase "believes that all Greeks are Hellenes", in such a
way that it contains a covert mention of the words "Greek" and
"Hellene". 7 For if we make what we have called a 'pure using use' of
1. X doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes
that all Greeks are Hellenes
it formulates (for us) exactly the same proposition as
1. X doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes
that all Greeks are Greeks.
and it is not easy to suppose that there is a value of 'x ' for which
(10) obtains.
Yet it can be supposed. Thus, even so interpreted as to be relevant to
the problem,
€ (f)
€ Nobody doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks
believes that all Greeks are Hellenes.
may be false. On the other hand,
€ (e)
€ Nobody doubts that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks
believes that all Greeks are Greeks
may be true. But it would be a howler to infer that the combination
(e)-true-and-(f)-false could obtain. For given the initial premise of
the discussion (the synonymity in our usage of "Greek" and "Hellene")
and the relevant interpretation of belief (and doubt) sentences, this
would be equivalent to the overtly self-contradictory combination (e)-
true-and-(e)-false.
Steve Carroll
Paul <pa...@vRiEsMcOeVrEallogic.com> wrote:
Exactly, it's a relatively well known (and simple) concept... of course,
Snit doesn't seem able to grasp it despite having it explained to him
for well over a year (yet, he claims to have a psych degree). My boys,
ages 13 and 15, had no trouble with such a simple concept. One look at
pertinent dictionary definitions and they were all set.
> A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
> A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
I never saw a person who thought sex was synonymous with incest...
though, I have seen Snit claim this on behalf of others (I'll give him
the benefit of the doubt and assume that's it's due to his inability to
comprehend what he's read, this, as opposed to his merely being
disingenuous... another well known Snit trait).
By the way, you may want to refrain from using terms like bilateral or
unilateral in a thread where Snit is involved... he'll probably call you
a lying troll for doing so;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
Ergo, if A = B and B = C, then A = C
> > On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> > incestuous activity does involve sex.
>
> Of course. Steve has repeatedly attributed a contrary straw man on me based
> on his silly semantic games, but he is merely being dishonest and/or showing
> how little he understands of what he reads.
Are you arguing that you didn't say that incest was a "sexual activity"?
Are you arguing that you didn't provide me a definition for the word
"sex" that defined it as "sexual activity"?
Where is the misunderstanding here, Snit? Your words... your
definition... all summed up into a simple math problem... just the way
you like it, Mr. moron.
> > In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
> > an inseparable part of sex.
>
> Agreed.
Who has ever disagreed? You keep claiming Wally has but you've yet to
show any evidence of it.
> > In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
>
>
> This is very much what I have been telling Steve. I have repeatedly told
> him:
>
> A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole.
Hint: Think REALLY hard about this portion of it, Snit... maybe, just
maybe... your extremely obvious problem will come into focus for you;)
> Incest is a subset of sex but not synonymous with it.
>
> > As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
> > synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
> > synonymity.
> >
> > What say you?
>
> I say you make complete sense.
And I say he hasn't given much thought to all that the word synonymous
*can* mean.
> There is nothing of any consequence where I
> disagree with your comments. I further would add that incest is so
> different from sex as to not be considered synonymous by anyone other than
> perverts.
You told me incest is a "sexual activity". You provided me a definition
for the word "sex" that defined it as "sexual activity". I guess you are
one of these perverts you are talking about...
Snit
paul-62B93A.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 3/30/06 11:13 AM:
They may be playing that game, but that does not fit with the initial
context:
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Nor does it fit with Steve's "proof":
"Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
It is clear that for most people incest is different enough from sex to
*not* be synonymous with it, no matter how many times Wally says otherwise.
Snit
122o91v...@corp.supernews.com on 3/30/06 11:32 AM:
To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so. Only
a pervert would claim that incest and sex are close enough to be considered
synonymous.
It is possible, hover, that Wally did not understand the context when he
jumped into the conversation.
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
If you are right that Wally did not understand the context of my comments,
however, why do you think he has not admitted to it all this time? Please
note, for what it is worth, that Wally has admitted that the above quote of
mine was what he was referencing, though he dishonestly snips the text after
the ellipses. Why do you think he feels the need to do that?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Yeah... goofy shit like "actually" using definitions of words I use;)
Cap off the glue tube, Snit.
> Keep in
> mind the original context.
>
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
We've seen your original strawman argument for Elizabot that spawned all
this bullshit. Not only did Elizabot not "equate" sex with incest, this
text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'.
> Steve and Wally have not only been playing silly semantic games, they have
> ignored the context of the original statement.
Irrelevant. You have provided many absolute statements using the word
synonymous that are incorrect, Snit. You are getting famous for you use
of erroneous absolutes.
> That is just what they do.
> Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating your games to yet another person. :)
All that has been demonstrated is your inability to comprehend what you
read and your limited vocabulary.
> If you want a real hoot, look at Steve's arguments against bullet number 4
> in my .sig. He spent a lot more energy humiliating himself with that one!
You're mistaken... I have never argued against bullet #4... a thing
which you are obviously confused over and stemming from your *moral*
argument regarding Bush. In mid-2004 I wrote:
"You are free to believe anything you like within the confines of
conducting your moral argument"
See? I have no beef with your *moral* argument.
As we agreed that Bush was not guilty in a legal sense... when you wrote:
Can we agree that to be "legally guilty" means to have been found guilty
in a court of law?
If so, my answer becomes an unqualified: yes - Bush is not legally
guilty."
... then you are *obviously* talking about guilt in a moral sense.
Of course, google shows that you have a rather strange way of looking at
your moral argument:
"Someone can look at my argument, even agree with my argument that Bush
has broken laws, and not find him morally guilty of any act. That means
they can agree Bush is guilty of breaking a law, but not morally guilty."
As the law(s) in question in your argument are related to Bush and the
Iraq war, it seems pretty bizarre that you'd make a statement talking
about how someone can agree with your argument that Bush is a "war
criminal" for having broken these laws, yet, they needn't find him
morally guilty for breaking laws (according to you) which have
culminated in ending the lives of civilians. But then, I've learned not
to pay too much attention to what you write;)
Snit
>> Steve has stated:
>>
>> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
>> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
>>
>> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
>
> No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
> word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
I am not interested in what *you* claim about my beliefs, Steve. Your
claims are rarely accurate. At first they could have been attributed to
ignorance, but you have been corrected too many times for that to be a
reasonable possibility. You are merely lying; it is just what you do.
>
> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
Incest is a subset of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
> Ergo, if A = B and B = C, then A = C
That is *your* claim, not mine. Your defense of your claim above is that
you did not believe it but dishonestly attributing to me. What a lovely
defense for your claims, Steve. LOL!
You have repeatedly lied about my views. You ignore my corrections of your
lies. You then claim I am lying about your views. Here, let me give you a
chance to correct my views of you. In the context of the original statement
that started this debate:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Do you believe that incest is synonymous with sex? I do not. I find such a
claim repulsive. For what it is worth, in relation to that quote (though he
dishonestly snips the content after the "...") Wally has stated
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
I find his view perverted and disgusting. Do you agree with him? If so I
find your views perverted and disgusting as well.
My guess: you will ignore my correction of your lies about my beliefs (as
you have done in the past) and will not comment on the actual context of
this conversation. That would be very much fitting with your past behavior.
You will most likely snip and run. It is just what you do.
>>> On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
>>> incestuous activity does involve sex.
>>
>> Of course. Steve has repeatedly attributed a contrary straw man on me based
>> on his silly semantic games, but he is merely being dishonest and/or showing
>> how little he understands of what he reads.
>
> Are you arguing that you didn't say that incest was a "sexual activity"?
>
> Are you arguing that you didn't provide me a definition for the word
> "sex" that defined it as "sexual activity"?
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
These are not hard concepts but ones you have shown no understanding of.
Quite telling.
> Where is the misunderstanding here, Snit?
See above. And many past posts. Look up the phrase:
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
How many times have I tried to teach you this simple concept? Heck, I
presented that fact to you in the very post you are responding to.
> Your words... your definition... all summed up into a simple math problem...
> just the way you like it, Mr. moron.
Note how you call me names based on your lies. Why do you do that?
<SNIP CONTENT="more of the same" />
Snit
>>> I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
>>
>> As stated before, Steve's games are based on silly semantic BS.
>
> Yeah... goofy shit like "actually" using definitions of words I use;)
>
> Cap off the glue tube, Snit.
>
>
>> Keep in
>> mind the original context.
>>
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> We've seen your original strawman argument for Elizabot that spawned all
> this bullshit. Not only did Elizabot not "equate" sex with incest, this
> text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'.
1) You are welcome to disagree about my view of Elizabeth's comments. That
is not, however, the current topic of discussion.
2) Thank you for acknowledging that even you recognize the original context
used used the concept of equating. I would accept that it would mean to
equate or to nearly equate. I appreciate this rare admission from you,
Steve - though if history serves as a guide you will flip flop and claim
that although the original context was as I have been saying it does not
matter for some bizarre pretzel-logic reason you will create. You are very
predictable.
>
>> Steve and Wally have not only been playing silly semantic games, they have
>> ignored the context of the original statement.
>
> Irrelevant.
I love how you do not even disagree how this whole debate is about your and
Wally's silly semantic games and your ignoring of the original context.
That is funny.
Your claim that this is irrelevant is a lie - it is very relevant. Had you
two not played such dishonest games there would be no debate. Period.
> You have provided many absolute statements using the word synonymous that are
> incorrect, Snit. You are getting famous for you use of erroneous absolutes.
I am not interested in your insults. Care to stick to the topic?
>
>> That is just what they do.
>> Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating your games to yet another person. :)
>
> All that has been demonstrated is your inability to comprehend what you
> read and your limited vocabulary.
Please note you have now admitted that the comment of mine that was used by
you and Wally to start your silly games makes it very clear how I was using
the word "synonymous".
this text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'
Again, while I would accept equal or nearly equal to, I have no desire to
argue that nit with you.
>> If you want a real hoot, look at Steve's arguments against bullet number 4
>> in my .sig. He spent a lot more energy humiliating himself with that one!
<SNIP>
I am not interested in your rehashing your BS you spewed all because you
could not find an honest refutation for my argument against Bush:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
How many years have you been failing to refute that argument, Steve? LOL!
Curieux
> In article <hLWWf.44112$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> You didn't actually get to the "meat of the thing:
Nope! No free ride from me...I had to figure this out about 30 years ago
without the sources (which required a year or so after Putnam published
his paper) to arrive at the conclusion you cite. I had a prof who
paralleled Putnam(s) ideas at the University of Chicago. It was obvious
he wanted to torture our brains as he did his - - A generation earlier.
It was not unlike learning a foreign language by immersion. He would
take us to a 'particular' point in the philosophy of language and
essentially we'd be in lock-down. No access to "the criticism which
followed". No, we'd didn't have Seller's 'key' (it followed Putnam, was
available...Yet not in our world, for that exercise).
I think that is good way to learn. Most disciplines don't allow 'looking
up the answers'.
Yet too often philosophy is taught by those who feel the student needs
to 'know how the mystery was solved' or they won't be interested in the
plot.
I suppose they are so desperate for students they don't want to scare
any off!
Ĺnd NO! This wasn't my most favorite exercisers I climbed upon..I don't
know if I've thought about it since. Something went off when I saw the
word "synonymity". Not exactly part of common usage. It was a bit
haunting to see the word, here.
> Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
> on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
> doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
> Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
> and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
Are those you words...it seems dang close to Seller's analysis!
In reading Putnam's general (or more comprehensive) notions on the
'mind' - 'thought' - 'language' one might see it as less of a mistake
and actually both consistent with his general theory and part of the
progression, (He was rather young in '54) he continued. Not to put words
in your mouth but I doubt it was a 'screw up' (his ingenuity wasn't
wasted) as he kept moving the ball up the field.
His realm didn't seek absolutes and the 20th Century had many 'apparent
losers' who fueled a greater movement.
But you know it wasn't the Olympics or even a contest. No one expected a
medal.
My own interests had faded a century earlier, At least. Wittgenstein?
Had I known he was part of the bargain - - - Maybe not 'that' degree?
Not only did LW come near the end, when I was exhausted - As you may
guess, the same prof & technique was use with Ludwig. They can't to that
to dudes at Gitmo.
If you have any interest in the philosophy of mathematics...it's all
there, all free on the WWW.
By recalling not only the question, but the answer...I'm good for
another 30 years before I need to revisit principles of
compositionality. People already think I'm nuts...a visit to what was
put into my brain will confirm it.
Michael
Snit
c%ZWf.44604$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net on 3/30/06 4:39 PM:
>> Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
>> on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
>> doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
>> Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
>> and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
>
> Are those you words...it seems dang close to Seller's analysis!
He altered a few words:
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Hellenic
http://www.network54.com/Forum/22270/viewall-page-715
No doubt Steve plagiarized.
> In reading Putnam's general (or more comprehensive) notions on the
> 'mind' - 'thought' - 'language' one might see it as less of a mistake
> and actually both consistent with his general theory and part of the
> progression, (He was rather young in '54) he continued. Not to put words
> in your mouth but I doubt it was a 'screw up' (his ingenuity wasn't
> wasted) as he kept moving the ball up the field.
> His realm didn't seek absolutes and the 20th Century had many 'apparent
> losers' who fueled a greater movement.
> But you know it wasn't the Olympics or even a contest. No one expected a
> medal.
>
> My own interests had faded a century earlier, At least. Wittgenstein?
> Had I known he was part of the bargain - - - Maybe not 'that' degree?
> Not only did LW come near the end, when I was exhausted - As you may
> guess, the same prof & technique was use with Ludwig. They can't to that
> to dudes at Gitmo.
>
> If you have any interest in the philosophy of mathematics...it's all
> there, all free on the WWW.
>
> By recalling not only the question, but the answer...I'm good for
> another 30 years before I need to revisit principles of
> compositionality. People already think I'm nuts...a visit to what was
> put into my brain will confirm it.
My favorite mathematical debate in CSMA
-----
Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
-----
That is my notation, but Steve has not been wiling to say which of the steps
he disagrees for and has argued for each. Here is a more complete
description, including his quotes:
Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
refutation with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is still
trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute
the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he neglected
to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
whole. No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
never-ending quest to seek revenge.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-2D13BD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 2:35 PM:
>
> >> Steve has stated:
> >>
> >> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
> >> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
> >>
> >> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
> >
> > No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
> > word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
>
> I am not interested in what *you* claim about my beliefs, Steve.
Fine... but one would think you would be interested in what *you* have
claimed about them.
> Your
> claims are rarely accurate. At first they could have been attributed to
> ignorance, but you have been corrected too many times for that to be a
> reasonable possibility. You are merely lying; it is just what you do.
Wrong. I'm just going by what you have told me.
> > 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
>
> Incest is a subset of sexual activities.
Nice try;) Incest is *one* instance of an activity, Snit. As you have
done again right here, you have told me that incest is an activity of a
*sexual* nature... a "sexual activity". I'm not remotely interested in
your newest obfuscation regarding "sexual activities"... I'm only
concerned with what you have told me about incest being a "sexual
activity".
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> > 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
>
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Not according to the definition of "sex" you provided me. As I said
above, I'm not interested in your newest smokescreen of referring to
"sexual activities".
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> > Ergo, if A = B and B = C, then A = C
>
> That is *your* claim, not mine.
It certainly is your claim... via inference.
> Your defense of your claim above is that
> you did not believe it but dishonestly attributing to me. What a lovely
> defense for your claims, Steve. LOL!
As it's not my claim, that doesn't even make any sense.
> You have repeatedly lied about my views.
No, I have simply mirrored your views back at you in a way you don't
like seeing them.
> You ignore my corrections of your
> lies. You then claim I am lying about your views. Here, let me give you a
> chance to correct my views of you. In the context of the original statement
> that started this debate:
>
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Do you believe that incest is synonymous with sex? I do not.
The word "synonymous" doesn't merely mean "equate", Snit... we've been
over this.
> I find such a claim repulsive.
Then why are you making statements and providing definitions that infer
the claim?
> For what it is worth, in relation to that quote (though he
> dishonestly snips the content after the "...") Wally has stated
>
> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> I find his view perverted and disgusting. Do you agree with him? If so I
> find your views perverted and disgusting as well.
>
> My guess: you will ignore my correction of your lies about my beliefs (as
> you have done in the past) and will not comment on the actual context of
> this conversation.
Where is my lie here?
> That would be very much fitting with your past behavior.
> You will most likely snip and run. It is just what you do.
I'm right here, Snit, waiting for you to be honest... for a change.
>
> >>> On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
> >>> incestuous activity does involve sex.
> >>
> >> Of course. Steve has repeatedly attributed a contrary straw man on me
> >> based
> >> on his silly semantic games, but he is merely being dishonest and/or
> >> showing
> >> how little he understands of what he reads.
> >
> > Are you arguing that you didn't say that incest was a "sexual activity"?
> >
> > Are you arguing that you didn't provide me a definition for the word
> > "sex" that defined it as "sexual activity"?
>
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
Sigh... for the 3rd time now, I'm not interested in your newest
smokescreen of referring to "sexual activities".
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> These are not hard concepts but ones you have shown no understanding of.
> Quite telling.
>
> > Where is the misunderstanding here, Snit?
>
> See above.
I still have no explanation by you that doesn't use smokescreens or
other feeble attempts at obfuscation. Let me make this easy for you. Are
you prepared to retract your statement that incest is a "sexual
activity"? Are you prepared to retract the definition of the word "sex"
you have previously provided? See, until you do one or both of those
things, there is no explanation that can change the obvious inference in
your statements.
> And many past posts. Look up the phrase:
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> How many times have I tried to teach you this simple concept? Heck, I
> presented that fact to you in the very post you are responding to.
As it's not in question here, it's completely irrelevant.
> > Your words... your definition... all summed up into a simple math
> > problem...
> > just the way you like it, Mr. moron.
>
> Note how you call me names based on your lies. Why do you do that?
Because you're being a moron here, Snit. You can't hide from what you
have stated... nor can you from the clear inference of your statements.
>
> <SNIP CONTENT="more of the same" />
What's this? Snipping by Snit?
Snit
> In article <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-2D13BD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 2:35 PM:
>>
>>>> Steve has stated:
>>>>
>>>> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
>>>> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
>>>>
>>>> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
>>>
>>> No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
>>> word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
>>
>> I am not interested in what *you* claim about my beliefs, Steve.
>
> Fine... but one would think you would be interested in what *you* have
> claimed about them.
But I am not interested in your dishonest interpretation.
>
>> Your claims are rarely accurate. At first they could have been attributed to
>> ignorance, but you have been corrected too many times for that to be a
>> reasonable possibility. You are merely lying; it is just what you do.
>
> Wrong. I'm just going by what you have told me.
Incorrect: you are lying about what I have told you, as discussed in the
*very post* you are responding to. As predicted you will not understand the
very simple concepts of:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
That, really, Steve is what this comes down to... that and you and Wally
lying about it.
Let's see if you say anything that alters these realities as you so
desperately want to do
>
>>> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
>>
>> Incest is a subset of sexual activities.
>
> Nice try;) Incest is *one* instance of an activity, Snit. As you have
> done again right here, you have told me that incest is an activity of a
> *sexual* nature... a "sexual activity". I'm not remotely interested in
> your newest obfuscation regarding "sexual activities"... I'm only
> concerned with what you have told me about incest being a "sexual
> activity".
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>>> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
>>
>> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
>
> Not according to the definition of "sex" you provided me. As I said
> above, I'm not interested in your newest smokescreen of referring to
> "sexual activities".
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>>> Ergo, if A = B and B = C, then A = C
>>
>> That is *your* claim, not mine.
>
> It certainly is your claim... via inference.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> Your defense of your claim above is that
>> you did not believe it but dishonestly attributing to me. What a lovely
>> defense for your claims, Steve. LOL!
>
> As it's not my claim, that doesn't even make any sense.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> You have repeatedly lied about my views.
>
> No, I have simply mirrored your views back at you in a way you don't
> like seeing them.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> You ignore my corrections of your
>> lies. You then claim I am lying about your views. Here, let me give you a
>> chance to correct my views of you. In the context of the original statement
>> that started this debate:
>>
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Do you believe that incest is synonymous with sex? I do not.
>
> The word "synonymous" doesn't merely mean "equate", Snit... we've been
> over this.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> I find such a claim repulsive.
>
> Then why are you making statements and providing definitions that infer
> the claim?
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> For what it is worth, in relation to that quote (though he
>> dishonestly snips the content after the "...") Wally has stated
>>
>> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>>
>> I find his view perverted and disgusting. Do you agree with him? If so I
>> find your views perverted and disgusting as well.
>>
>> My guess: you will ignore my correction of your lies about my beliefs (as
>> you have done in the past) and will not comment on the actual context of
>> this conversation.
>
> Where is my lie here?
Learn to understand what you read in the post you responded to.
>
>> That would be very much fitting with your past behavior.
>> You will most likely snip and run. It is just what you do.
>
> I'm right here, Snit, waiting for you to be honest... for a change.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
>>>>> incestuous activity does involve sex.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Steve has repeatedly attributed a contrary straw man on me
>>>> based
>>>> on his silly semantic games, but he is merely being dishonest and/or
>>>> showing
>>>> how little he understands of what he reads.
>>>
>>> Are you arguing that you didn't say that incest was a "sexual activity"?
>>>
>>> Are you arguing that you didn't provide me a definition for the word
>>> "sex" that defined it as "sexual activity"?
>>
>> Incest is a subset of sex
>> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
>> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> Sigh... for the 3rd time now, I'm not interested in your newest
> smokescreen of referring to "sexual activities".
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>> These are not hard concepts but ones you have shown no understanding of.
>> Quite telling.
>>
>>> Where is the misunderstanding here, Snit?
>>
>> See above.
>
> I still have no explanation by you that doesn't use smokescreens or
> other feeble attempts at obfuscation. Let me make this easy for you. Are
> you prepared to retract your statement that incest is a "sexual
> activity"? Are you prepared to retract the definition of the word "sex"
> you have previously provided? See, until you do one or both of those
> things, there is no explanation that can change the obvious inference in
> your statements.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>
>> And many past posts. Look up the phrase:
>>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>> How many times have I tried to teach you this simple concept? Heck, I
>> presented that fact to you in the very post you are responding to.
>
> As it's not in question here, it's completely irrelevant.
>
>>> Your words... your definition... all summed up into a simple math
>>> problem...
>>> just the way you like it, Mr. moron.
>>
>> Note how you call me names based on your lies. Why do you do that?
>
> Because you're being a moron here, Snit. You can't hide from what you
> have stated... nor can you from the clear inference of your statements.
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
>
>>
>> <SNIP CONTENT="more of the same" />
>
> What's this? Snipping by Snit?
Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
Well, Steve, you again failed to alter reality. Here are the truths you are
*still* running from and lying about:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
No matter how many times you are told these things you will *still* lie
about them. You are that predictable.
Steve Carroll
Curieux <G...@att.net> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > In article <hLWWf.44112$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>
> > You didn't actually get to the "meat of the thing:
>
> Nope! No free ride from me...I had to figure this out about 30 years ago
> without the sources (which required a year or so after Putnam published
> his paper) to arrive at the conclusion you cite. I had a prof who
> paralleled Putnam(s) ideas at the University of Chicago. It was obvious
> he wanted to torture our brains as he did his - - A generation earlier.
Good for him... glad I wasn't there;)
> It was not unlike learning a foreign language by immersion. He would
> take us to a 'particular' point in the philosophy of language and
> essentially we'd be in lock-down. No access to "the criticism which
> followed". No, we'd didn't have Seller's 'key' (it followed Putnam, was
> available...Yet not in our world, for that exercise).
>
> I think that is good way to learn. Most disciplines don't allow 'looking
> up the answers'.
> Yet too often philosophy is taught by those who feel the student needs
> to 'know how the mystery was solved' or they won't be interested in the
> plot.
This holds true for many people.
> I suppose they are so desperate for students they don't want to scare
> any off!
>
> Ånd NO! This wasn't my most favorite exercisers I climbed upon..I don't
> know if I've thought about it since. Something went off when I saw the
> word "synonymity". Not exactly part of common usage. It was a bit
> haunting to see the word, here.
>
> > Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
> > on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
> > doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
> > Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
> > and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
>
> Are those you words...it seems dang close to Seller's analysis!
Of course it's Sellars analysis.
> In reading Putnam's general (or more comprehensive) notions on the
> 'mind' - 'thought' - 'language' one might see it as less of a mistake
> and actually both consistent with his general theory and part of the
> progression, (He was rather young in '54) he continued. Not to put words
> in your mouth but I doubt it was a 'screw up' (his ingenuity wasn't
> wasted) as he kept moving the ball up the field.
> His realm didn't seek absolutes and the 20th Century had many 'apparent
> losers' who fueled a greater movement.
> But you know it wasn't the Olympics or even a contest. No one expected a
> medal.
>
> My own interests had faded a century earlier, At least. Wittgenstein?
> Had I known he was part of the bargain - - - Maybe not 'that' degree?
> Not only did LW come near the end, when I was exhausted - As you may
> guess, the same prof & technique was use with Ludwig. They can't to that
> to dudes at Gitmo.
>
> If you have any interest in the philosophy of mathematics...it's all
> there, all free on the WWW.
>
> By recalling not only the question, but the answer...I'm good for
> another 30 years before I need to revisit principles of
> compositionality. People already think I'm nuts...a visit to what was
> put into my brain will confirm it.
Well, I know you're driving Sandman nuts;)
> Michael
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Curieux" <G...@att.net> stated in post
> c%ZWf.44604$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net on 3/30/06 4:39 PM:
>
> >> Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
> >> on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
> >> doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
> >> Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
> >> and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
> >
> > Are those you words...it seems dang close to Seller's analysis!
>
> He altered a few words:
Wrong:
http://www.ditext.com/sellars/psb.html
>
> http://www.factbites.com/topics/Hellenic
> http://www.network54.com/Forum/22270/viewall-page-715
>
> No doubt Steve plagiarized.
No, Snit... I thought I'd reinvent the fucking wheel. Geezus you're
stupid;)
> > In reading Putnam's general (or more comprehensive) notions on the
> > 'mind' - 'thought' - 'language' one might see it as less of a mistake
> > and actually both consistent with his general theory and part of the
> > progression, (He was rather young in '54) he continued. Not to put words
> > in your mouth but I doubt it was a 'screw up' (his ingenuity wasn't
> > wasted) as he kept moving the ball up the field.
> > His realm didn't seek absolutes and the 20th Century had many 'apparent
> > losers' who fueled a greater movement.
> > But you know it wasn't the Olympics or even a contest. No one expected a
> > medal.
> >
> > My own interests had faded a century earlier, At least. Wittgenstein?
> > Had I known he was part of the bargain - - - Maybe not 'that' degree?
> > Not only did LW come near the end, when I was exhausted - As you may
> > guess, the same prof & technique was use with Ludwig. They can't to that
> > to dudes at Gitmo.
> >
> > If you have any interest in the philosophy of mathematics...it's all
> > there, all free on the WWW.
> >
> > By recalling not only the question, but the answer...I'm good for
> > another 30 years before I need to revisit principles of
> > compositionality. People already think I'm nuts...a visit to what was
> > put into my brain will confirm it.
>
> My favorite mathematical debate in CSMA
Your favorite? Gee... and here I thought you preferred the one about a
'lack of 100% proof' and 'a 100% lack of proof'. LOL!
> -----
> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
> your argument looks like:
>
> A = B
> B = C
> A <> C
> -----
>
> That is my notation, but Steve has not been wiling to say which of the steps
> he disagrees for and has argued for each.
Yawn... you're lying... again. I've made it abundantly clear that if the
argument is a legal argument which purports guilt then a "Lack of proof"
---- as in **NO** proof whatsoever ----
*should* lead to "Doubt" of the guilt allegation... in fact, in such an
allegation, a "Lack of proof" *should* lead to far more than merely
reasonable "Doubt"... it should lead to 100% "Doubt". An instance where
there is 100% "Doubt" *should* lead to a "Valid refutation" of a guilt
allegation. Everyone (but you) agreed with this logical assessment.
The math here stemmed from what you called your "legal" argument about
Bush's guilt. Here is what you said about the evidence for your argument
alleging his guilt:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
You are shown not only defining proof for me... but unequivocally
stating that your evidence offers NONE... all the while claiming that
you have 'strongly supported' your claim. LOL!
Conclusion: You politicized the Iraq war. Period. That was you entire
goal for this argument... you didn't care a whit about the philosophical
arguments involved, which is why you didn't entertain any of them. Of
course, it didn't help that you didn't understand any of them...
including what you yourself were arguing.
> Here is a more complete
> description, including his quotes:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
>
> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
> refutation
LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
different grounds.
> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
> this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is still
> trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute
> the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he neglected
> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
> whole.
Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
> No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
> never-ending quest to seek revenge.
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3CCF2C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 3:17 PM:
>
> >>> I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
> >>
> >> As stated before, Steve's games are based on silly semantic BS.
> >
> > Yeah... goofy shit like "actually" using definitions of words I use;)
> >
> > Cap off the glue tube, Snit.
> >
> >
> >> Keep in
> >> mind the original context.
> >>
> >> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> >> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
> >
> > We've seen your original strawman argument for Elizabot that spawned all
> > this bullshit. Not only did Elizabot not "equate" sex with incest, this
> > text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'.
>
> 1) You are welcome to disagree about my view of Elizabeth's comments. That
> is not, however, the current topic of discussion.
> 2) Thank you for acknowledging that even you recognize the original context
> used used the concept of equating.
Yeah... it's too bad you had to be your same old stupid self and
subsequently post a slew of erroneous absolute statements, huh?
> I would accept that it would mean to
> equate or to nearly equate. I appreciate this rare admission from you,
Uh... I'm not the guy who saw fit to continue blindly on and post a
bunch of silly erroneous absolutes.
> Steve - though if history serves as a guide you will flip flop and claim
> that although the original context was as I have been saying it does not
> matter for some bizarre pretzel-logic reason you will create. You are very
> predictable.
"Actually", if history serves as a guide I will continue to point out
when you issue erroneous absolute statements. You are very predictable.
> >> Steve and Wally have not only been playing silly semantic games, they have
> >> ignored the context of the original statement.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> I love how you do not even disagree how this whole debate is about your and
> Wally's silly semantic games and your ignoring of the original context.
> That is funny.
Don't confuse yourself here, Snit... I'm not agreeing.
> Your claim that this is irrelevant is a lie - it is very relevant. Had you
> two not played such dishonest games there would be no debate. Period.
No, what is relevant is you issuing your idiotic, erroneous, absolute
statements and then steadfastly adhering to them when you are shown your
error.
> > You have provided many absolute statements using the word synonymous that
> > are
> > incorrect, Snit. You are getting famous for you use of erroneous absolutes.
>
> I am not interested in your insults.
That isn't an insult, it's a fact.
> Care to stick to the topic?
Nah... your images were OK but I've seen much better... made much
better, myself. So what's your excuse for not sticking to the topic?
> >
> >> That is just what they do.
> >> Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating your games to yet another person. :)
> >
> > All that has been demonstrated is your inability to comprehend what you
> > read and your limited vocabulary.
>
> Please note you have now admitted that the comment of mine that was used by
> you and Wally to start your silly games makes it very clear how I was using
> the word "synonymous".
I know how you used it then... and I know how you've used it since.
> this text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'
>
> Again, while I would accept equal or nearly equal to, I have no desire to
> argue that nit with you.
That's your problem... and the source of... well... your problem.
> >> If you want a real hoot, look at Steve's arguments against bullet number 4
> >> in my .sig. He spent a lot more energy humiliating himself with that one!
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I am not interested in your rehashing your BS you spewed all because you
> could not find an honest refutation for my argument against Bush:
>
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
>
> How many years have you been failing to refute that argument, Steve? LOL!
If you are calling it a legal argument, then it has already been
refuted, even by you. If you are calling it a moral argument, I will
remind you that I see no way to come between a man an his ideas on
morality and have told you as much. So, what kind of argument are you
calling it today, Snit;)
Snit
> In article <C051BFAD.4A2B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Curieux" <G...@att.net> stated in post
>> c%ZWf.44604$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net on 3/30/06 4:39 PM:
>>
>>>> Now the truth of the matter is that the argument summarized above rests
>>>> on a simple mistake. And if Putnam had asked himself why he does not
>>>> doubt that whoever believes that all Greeks are Greeks believes that all
>>>> Greeks are Hellenes , he would undoubtedly have discovered his mistake,
>>>> and saved himself a considerable expenditure of ingenuity.
>>>
>>> Are those you words...it seems dang close to Seller's analysis!
>>
>> He altered a few words:
>
> Wrong:
>
> http://www.ditext.com/sellars/psb.html
>
>>
>> http://www.factbites.com/topics/Hellenic
>> http://www.network54.com/Forum/22270/viewall-page-715
>>
>> No doubt Steve plagiarized.
>
> No, Snit... I thought I'd reinvent the fucking wheel. Geezus you're
> stupid;)
Gee, Steve, you were caught plagiarizing and then call me names. Whatever
helps you deal with your wounded ego, eh Steve? LOL! Why don't you just
join myself and the others who are honest and honorable and not put yourself
in such positions?
>
>>> In reading Putnam's general (or more comprehensive) notions on the
>>> 'mind' - 'thought' - 'language' one might see it as less of a mistake
>>> and actually both consistent with his general theory and part of the
>>> progression, (He was rather young in '54) he continued. Not to put words
>>> in your mouth but I doubt it was a 'screw up' (his ingenuity wasn't
>>> wasted) as he kept moving the ball up the field.
>>> His realm didn't seek absolutes and the 20th Century had many 'apparent
>>> losers' who fueled a greater movement.
>>> But you know it wasn't the Olympics or even a contest. No one expected a
>>> medal.
>>>
>>> My own interests had faded a century earlier, At least. Wittgenstein?
>>> Had I known he was part of the bargain - - - Maybe not 'that' degree?
>>> Not only did LW come near the end, when I was exhausted - As you may
>>> guess, the same prof & technique was use with Ludwig. They can't to that
>>> to dudes at Gitmo.
>>>
>>> If you have any interest in the philosophy of mathematics...it's all
>>> there, all free on the WWW.
>>>
>>> By recalling not only the question, but the answer...I'm good for
>>> another 30 years before I need to revisit principles of
>>> compositionality. People already think I'm nuts...a visit to what was
>>> put into my brain will confirm it.
>>
>> My favorite mathematical debate in CSMA
>
> Your favorite? Gee... and here I thought you preferred the one about a
> 'lack of 100% proof' and 'a 100% lack of proof'. LOL!
Your semantic games can be amusing, but I prefer your attempt to disprove A
= C.
All that babbling, Steve, and you have not stated which you disagree with:
Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
And, of course, you never will.
>> Here is a more complete
>> description, including his quotes:
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
>>
>> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
>> refutation
>
> LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
> different grounds.
But you are just not willing to embarrass me by linking to any of them,
right? LOL!
>> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
>> this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is still
>> trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute
>> the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he neglected
>> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
>> whole.
>
> Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two hours*
ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
In it you make the claim:
1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
Please note that your claim is ignorant. A partial subset of the whole is
not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities but
is not synonymous with it.
You also state:
2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
Please note that your claim is ignorant. A partial subset of the whole is
not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but is
not synonymous with it.
You then concluded that incest is equal to sex - though you backpedaled and
stated you did not believe *your* claim but were trying to attribute it to
me (which is, of course, dishonest of you)! Do you have a better defense
of your claim other than to say you were lying? I am guessing not, though
you will babble greatly to try to obfuscate your ignorance and dishonesty.
Also keep in mind that you responded to that post from about two hours ago -
so your claim that I cannot show where I described you doing as I said is a
clear lie. Do you *ever* tell the truth?
>> No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
>> never-ending quest to seek revenge.
My mistake: Steve did not *ignore* his error, he side stepped discussing it
and lied by claiming I could not show where his error occurred. I stand
corrected. :)
Snit
> In article <C051B500.4A298%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-3CCF2C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 3:17 PM:
>>
>>>>> I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
>>>>
>>>> As stated before, Steve's games are based on silly semantic BS.
>>>
>>> Yeah... goofy shit like "actually" using definitions of words I use;)
>>>
>>> Cap off the glue tube, Snit.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Keep in
>>>> mind the original context.
>>>>
>>>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>>
>>> We've seen your original strawman argument for Elizabot that spawned all
>>> this bullshit. Not only did Elizabot not "equate" sex with incest, this
>>> text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'.
>>
>> 1) You are welcome to disagree about my view of Elizabeth's comments. That
>> is not, however, the current topic of discussion.
>> 2) Thank you for acknowledging that even you recognize the original context
>> used used the concept of equating.
>
> Yeah... it's too bad you had to be your same old stupid self and
> subsequently post a slew of erroneous absolute statements, huh?
Gee, I am soooo controversial:
-----
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
-----
LOL! Oh, and your side stepping of your admission did not go unnoticed.
Again, Steve, thank you for acknowledging that even you recognize the
original context used used the concept of equating.
>
>> I would accept that it would mean to
>> equate or to nearly equate. I appreciate this rare admission from you,
>
> Uh... I'm not the guy who saw fit to continue blindly on and post a
> bunch of silly erroneous absolutes.
Here they are again:
-----
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
-----
Deal with it, Steve.
>> Steve - though if history serves as a guide you will flip flop and claim
>> that although the original context was as I have been saying it does not
>> matter for some bizarre pretzel-logic reason you will create. You are very
>> predictable.
>
> "Actually", if history serves as a guide I will continue to point out
> when you issue erroneous absolute statements. You are very predictable.
Here they are again:
-----
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
-----
Deal with it, Steve.
>
>>>> Steve and Wally have not only been playing silly semantic games, they have
>>>> ignored the context of the original statement.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> I love how you do not even disagree how this whole debate is about your and
>> Wally's silly semantic games and your ignoring of the original context.
>> That is funny.
>
> Don't confuse yourself here, Snit... I'm not agreeing.
Hmmm, but above you acknowledged the context was as I was saying. So what
"pretzel-logic" will you use to try to weasel out of this? Come on, Steve,
be my clapping monkey and amuse me with another of your silly piles of lies!
>
>> Your claim that this is irrelevant is a lie - it is very relevant. Had you
>> two not played such dishonest games there would be no debate. Period.
>
> No, what is relevant is you issuing your idiotic, erroneous, absolute
> statements and then steadfastly adhering to them when you are shown your
> error.
Here they are again:
-----
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
-----
Deal with it, Steve.
>
>>> You have provided many absolute statements using the word synonymous that
>>> are
>>> incorrect, Snit. You are getting famous for you use of erroneous absolutes.
>>
>> I am not interested in your insults.
>
> That isn't an insult, it's a fact.
Pee Wee Herman wants his lines back. :)
>
>> Care to stick to the topic?
>
> Nah... your images were OK but I've seen much better... made much
> better, myself. So what's your excuse for not sticking to the topic?
Sorry the context got you so confused again, Steve. Perhaps you should look
up "topic drift" to help you understand.
>>>
>>>> That is just what they do.
>>>> Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating your games to yet another person. :)
>>>
>>> All that has been demonstrated is your inability to comprehend what you
>>> read and your limited vocabulary.
>>
>> Please note you have now admitted that the comment of mine that was used by
>> you and Wally to start your silly games makes it very clear how I was using
>> the word "synonymous".
>
> I know how you used it then... and I know how you've used it since.
My views are consistent:
-----
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
-----
Deal with it, Steve.
>> this text shows you think synonymous is limited to meaning 'equal to'
>>
>> Again, while I would accept equal or nearly equal to, I have no desire to
>> argue that nit with you.
>
> That's your problem... and the source of... well... your problem.
LOL! I state I do not want to nit pick your errors and you claim that is my
"problem". LOL! Too damned funny!
>
>>>> If you want a real hoot, look at Steve's arguments against bullet number 4
>>>> in my .sig. He spent a lot more energy humiliating himself with that one!
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I am not interested in your rehashing your BS you spewed all because you
>> could not find an honest refutation for my argument against Bush:
>>
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
>>
>> How many years have you been failing to refute that argument, Steve? LOL!
>
> If you are calling it a legal argument, then it has already been
> refuted, even by you. If you are calling it a moral argument, I will
> remind you that I see no way to come between a man an his ideas on
> morality and have told you as much. So, what kind of argument are you
> calling it today, Snit;)
I am not interested in your cubby holes. Read the damned argument and at
least *try* to comprehend what you read! And then point to your nonexistent
brilliant refutation... the one you have failed to make after *years* of
trying.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I didn't claim I wrote what was written, Snit... I merely forgot to post
the link. Good luck in your pursuit of proving that I was attempting to
pass these words off as my own. I guess if I was as kicked around as
much as you are on this ng (and probably life in general) I'd grope for
whatever openings I thought I could get.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> > The math here stemmed from what you called your "legal" argument about
> > Bush's guilt. Here is what you said about the evidence for your argument
> > alleging his guilt:
> >
> > "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> > series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> > necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> > to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> > logical sense, proof."
Note: No comment from Snit.
> > You are shown not only defining proof for me... but unequivocally
> > stating that your evidence offers NONE... all the while claiming that
> > you have 'strongly supported' your claim. LOL!
Note: No comment from Snit.
> > Conclusion: You politicized the Iraq war. Period. That was you entire
> > goal for this argument... you didn't care a whit about the philosophical
> > arguments involved, which is why you didn't entertain any of them. Of
> > course, it didn't help that you didn't understand any of them...
> > including what you yourself were arguing.
>
> All that babbling, Steve, and you have not stated which you disagree with:
"Actually", I did that and more... it's only your inability to
comprehend what you've read that led you astray. But hey, it's still fun
to watch you avoid talking about your "evidence", your "Lack of proof"
and your 'strongly supported' argument. LOL!
> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> And, of course, you never will.
Keep on huffin'!
> >> Here is a more complete
> >> description, including his quotes:
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
> >>
> >> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
> >> refutation
> >
> > LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
> > different grounds.
>
> But you are just not willing to embarrass me by linking to any of them,
> right? LOL!
Read any of the arguments in the "Scary article" thread. Virtually all
of them refuted your ever changing argument;)
> >> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
> >> this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is
> >> still
> >> trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute
> >> the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he
> >> neglected
> >> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
> >> whole.
> >
> > Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
>
> Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two hours*
> ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> In it you make the claim:
>
> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
>
> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
No, Snit... it is *your* claim that I am utilizing here. So, are you
finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
now? Is that how I should interpret your actions here?
> A partial subset of the whole is
> not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities but
> is not synonymous with it.
>
> You also state:
>
> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
>
> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
No, Snit... you're confused again. Here, I am referring to the
definition of the word "sex" that *you* provided for me.
> A partial subset of the whole is
> not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but is
> not synonymous with it.
>
> You then concluded that incest is equal to sex
I reached the only conclusion that your statement and provided
definition inferred.
> - though you backpedaled and
> stated you did not believe *your* claim but were trying to attribute it to
> me (which is, of course, dishonest of you)! Do you have a better defense
> of your claim other than to say you were lying? I am guessing not, though
> you will babble greatly to try to obfuscate your ignorance and dishonesty.
>
> Also keep in mind that you responded to that post from about two hours ago -
> so your claim that I cannot show where I described you doing as I said is a
> clear lie. Do you *ever* tell the truth?
WTF are you babbling about?
> >> No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
> >> never-ending quest to seek revenge.
>
> My mistake: Steve did not *ignore* his error, he side stepped discussing it
> and lied by claiming I could not show where his error occurred. I stand
> corrected. :)
You will always stand corrected, Snit... it's your lot in life;)
Snit
>> Gee, Steve, you were caught plagiarizing and then call me names. Whatever
>> helps you deal with your wounded ego, eh Steve? LOL! Why don't you just
>> join myself and the others who are honest and honorable and not put yourself
>> in such positions?
>
>
> I didn't claim I wrote what was written, Snit...
Gee, you mean you do not start your every post with "I wrote the following"?
Nobody I know of does that, Steve. You did, however, post to a public forum
those words without attributing them to anyone. In other words you
plagiarized. Now that you have been caught you suddenly "forgot". LOL!
> I merely forgot to post the link.
Riiiiiight. Just as you "forgot" to look up the quotes in your .sig and
merely accidentally are attributing someone else's words to me. You have a
history - even a recent history, of attributing words to people who did not
write them.
> Good luck in your pursuit of proving that I was attempting to pass these words
> off as my own. I guess if I was as kicked around as much as you are on this ng
> (and probably life in general) I'd grope for whatever openings I thought I
> could get.
LOL! You plagiarized and were caught, Steve. Deal with it.
So which of those do you disagree with? You can just give a number if that
is easier for you:
1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
Come on, Steve, take a stand! Which of those "logic statements" do you
think is incorrect? I will give you a hint, #1 is called an argument from
ignorance... and it is the very argument you repeatedly try to push!
>>>> Here is a more complete
>>>> description, including his quotes:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
>>>>
>>>> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
>>>> refutation
>>>
>>> LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
>>> different grounds.
>>
>> But you are just not willing to embarrass me by linking to any of them,
>> right? LOL!
>
> Read any of the arguments in the "Scary article" thread. Virtually all
> of them refuted your ever changing argument;)
Come on, Steve, how about a link? A quote? You pointed to a *thread* from
about *two years ago* with literally hundreds of posts. Are you still stuck
on some semantic nit you picked from that long ago? Can you point to the
post?
>
>>>> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
>>>> this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is
>>>> still
>>>> trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute
>>>> the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he
>>>> neglected
>>>> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
>>>> whole.
>>>
>>> Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
>>
>> Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two hours*
>> ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>
>> In it you make the claim:
>>
>> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
>>
>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
>
> No, Snit... it is *your* claim that I am utilizing here.
Please link and quote. Oh, wait, you can't.
> So, are you
> finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
I keep telling you:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
And you ask:
So, are you finally retracting your statement that incest is a
"sexual activity" now?
How you can be so completely unable to understand such simple concepts is
anyone's guess.
> Is that how I should interpret your actions here?
You *should* try to understand what you read. You, of course, will not.
>> A partial subset of the whole is
>> not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities but
>> is not synonymous with it.
>>
>> You also state:
>>
>> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
>>
>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
>
> No, Snit... you're confused again. Here, I am referring to the
> definition of the word "sex" that *you* provided for me.
Link? Post? No doubt you are just playing another of your silly semantic
games.
>
>> A partial subset of the whole is
>> not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but is
>> not synonymous with it.
>>
>> You then concluded that incest is equal to sex
>
> I reached the only conclusion that your statement and provided
> definition inferred.
You reached the only conclusion *you* could reach, which has nothing to do
with my relevant views. Here they are again:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Please note how Wally's views differ from mine. Here is how he responded to
my quote to Elizabeth:
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
Do you agree with me, with Wally, or neither? If neither, what is your
view?
>> - though you backpedaled and
>> stated you did not believe *your* claim but were trying to attribute it to
>> me (which is, of course, dishonest of you)! Do you have a better defense
>> of your claim other than to say you were lying? I am guessing not, though
>> you will babble greatly to try to obfuscate your ignorance and dishonesty.
>>
>> Also keep in mind that you responded to that post from about two hours ago -
>> so your claim that I cannot show where I described you doing as I said is a
>> clear lie. Do you *ever* tell the truth?
>
> WTF are you babbling about?
Learn to understand what you read.
>
>>>> No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
>>>> never-ending quest to seek revenge.
>>
>> My mistake: Steve did not *ignore* his error, he side stepped discussing it
>> and lied by claiming I could not show where his error occurred. I stand
>> corrected. :)
>
>
> You will always stand corrected, Snit... it's your lot in life;)
Gee, I did not guess how you would react to your own lies. The horror!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-A95CF3....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 5:15 PM:
>
> > In article <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-2D13BD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 2:35 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Steve has stated:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
> >>>> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
> >>>>
> >>>> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
> >>>
> >>> No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
> >>> word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
> >>
> >> I am not interested in what *you* claim about my beliefs, Steve.
> >
> > Fine... but one would think you would be interested in what *you* have
> > claimed about them.
>
> But I am not interested in your dishonest interpretation.
You're confused... again. I am not you, Snit... and you are not me. You,
being interested in what *you* claim about your beliefs has nothing to
do with me... even if I am the person posting your statements and/or
definitions.
> >> Your claims are rarely accurate. At first they could have been attributed
> >> to
> >> ignorance, but you have been corrected too many times for that to be a
> >> reasonable possibility. You are merely lying; it is just what you do.
> >
> > Wrong. I'm just going by what you have told me.
>
> Incorrect: you are lying about what I have told you,
Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
Hint: As you've done it again in this very thread, it'll be rather
difficult to pull this particular denial off;)
Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
Is there a particular reason you are avoiding answering these questions?
> as discussed in the
> *very post* you are responding to. As predicted you will not understand the
> very simple concepts of:
>
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> That, really, Steve is what this comes down to... that and you and Wally
> lying about it.
Uh... no, your irrelevant smokescreening doesn't enter into the matter.
> Let's see if you say anything that alters these realities as you so
> desperately want to do
What you have said on the topic is all that's relevant here. Are you
going to answer the question above or are you going to continue to hide
in your little corner of denial? The questions are:
Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
> >>> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
> >>
> >> Incest is a subset of sexual activities.
> >
> > Nice try;) Incest is *one* instance of an activity, Snit. As you have
> > done again right here, you have told me that incest is an activity of a
> > *sexual* nature... a "sexual activity". I'm not remotely interested in
> > your newest obfuscation regarding "sexual activities"... I'm only
> > concerned with what you have told me about incest being a "sexual
> > activity".
>
> Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
True... but as these particular "realities" are irrelevant to what I am
discussing with you there is no point in dwelling on them.
Are you going to answer the questions above or are you going to continue
to hide in your little corner of denial? The questions are:
Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
(snip a bunch of stuff Snit refused to deal with)
> >
> >> For what it is worth, in relation to that quote (though he
> >> dishonestly snips the content after the "...") Wally has stated
> >>
> >> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> >> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> >> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> >> synonymous!"
> >>
> >> I find his view perverted and disgusting. Do you agree with him? If so I
> >> find your views perverted and disgusting as well.
> >>
> >> My guess: you will ignore my correction of your lies about my beliefs (as
> >> you have done in the past) and will not comment on the actual context of
> >> this conversation.
> >
> > Where is my lie here?
>
> Learn to understand what you read in the post you responded to.
I understand perfectly. You told me that incest is a sexual activity.
You also provided for me a definition of the word "sex" that defined
"sex" as "sexual activity". For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge
either of these facts. So where is my lie?
(snip a bunch of stuff Snit refused to deal with)
> > I still have no explanation by you that doesn't use smokescreens or
> > other feeble attempts at obfuscation. Let me make this easy for you. Are
> > you prepared to retract your statement that incest is a "sexual
> > activity"? Are you prepared to retract the definition of the word "sex"
> > you have previously provided? See, until you do one or both of those
> > things, there is no explanation that can change the obvious inference in
> > your statements.
Note: No substantive comment from Snit.
> Nothing you say their changes the above realities I wrote about.
True... but as these particular "realities" are irrelevant to what I am
discussing with you there is no point in dwelling on them.
Are you going to answer the questions above or are you going to continue
to hide in your little corner of denial? The questions are:
Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
(snip a bunch of stuff Snit refused to deal with)
> Well, Steve, you again failed to alter reality.
I never attempted to alter "reality".
> Here are the truths you are
> *still* running from and lying about:
>
> Incest is a subset of sex
You also told me that incest is a "sexual activity". And you provided me
a definition for the word "sex" which defined it as "sexual activity".
How do you account for that?
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Not according to the definition of the word "sex" you provided for me.
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
Great... but irrelevant to what we are discussing.
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Fine, the context you are using the word synonymous is that of being
equal. You told me that incest *is* a "sexual activity". Are you now
saying that it isn't?
> No matter how many times you are told these things you will *still* lie
> about them. You are that predictable.
Where is my lie, Snit? And why do you keep talking about a bunch of
irrelevant stuff? Is it because you are incapable of dealing with what
you have told me?
Curieux
> In article <c%ZWf.44604$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Curieux <G...@att.net> wrote:
<haste makes waste...I'minahurry>
> Well, I know you're driving Sandman nuts;)
Not my intent.
I did piss him off (no, not my intent)
& I don't roll-over easily (my intent)
But, I'm OK the the folks here. No entry in a group is without a bump
or two. People are wary, I'm not a good diplomat. I plan on not having
an enemies list and that is the best way to not end up on one.
Plus, I was raised in a loud family...I'm less at ease if I don't know
what's up.
Michael
Snit
>>>>>> Steve has stated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
>>>>>> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Snit, I argued that this math came out of what *you* told me and the
>>>>> word definition you gave me for the word "sex".
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in what *you* claim about my beliefs, Steve.
>>>
>>> Fine... but one would think you would be interested in what *you* have
>>> claimed about them.
>>
>> But I am not interested in your dishonest interpretation.
>
> You're confused... again. I am not you, Snit... and you are not me. You,
> being interested in what *you* claim about your beliefs has nothing to
> do with me... even if I am the person posting your statements and/or
> definitions.
Even after your babbling I am *still* not interested in your dishonest
interpretation.
>
>>>> Your claims are rarely accurate. At first they could have been attributed
>>>> to ignorance, but you have been corrected too many times for that to be a
>>>> reasonable possibility. You are merely lying; it is just what you do.
>>>
>>> Wrong. I'm just going by what you have told me.
>>
>> Incorrect: you are lying about what I have told you,
>
> Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
>
> Hint: As you've done it again in this very thread, it'll be rather
> difficult to pull this particular denial off;)
>
> Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
> that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
>
> Is there a particular reason you are avoiding answering these questions?
Keep in mind what I have been telling you:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
And yet you *still* ask those questions. Do you see now how I have answered
them repeatedly? Here, let me help you:
Your question:
Are you denying that you have told me that incest is a sexual activity?
My view:
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
Your question:
Are you denying that you provided for me a definition of the word "sex"
that defined "sex" as "sexual activity"?
My view:
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
If you think I provided some other definition I would love to see the link.
Do you see now how your questions were fully answered? You, on the other
hand, repeatedly run from questions, such as when I ask you which of the
following you disagree with:
1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
I made it easy for you and even told you #1 is called the argument from
ignorance. Be a man and take a stand, Steve!
You just repeat yourself a lot below... snipped for brevity.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-EED548....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 6:40 PM:
>
> >> Gee, Steve, you were caught plagiarizing and then call me names. Whatever
> >> helps you deal with your wounded ego, eh Steve? LOL! Why don't you just
> >> join myself and the others who are honest and honorable and not put
> >> yourself
> >> in such positions?
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim I wrote what was written, Snit...
>
> Gee, you mean you do not start your every post with "I wrote the following"?
> Nobody I know of does that, Steve. You did, however, post to a public forum
> those words without attributing them to anyone. In other words you
> plagiarized. Now that you have been caught you suddenly "forgot". LOL!
It appears that your only 'proof' that I plagiarized anything is your
assertion that I've done it. You seem to think you can prove that I lied
when I say I forgot to post the link. Let's see what you come up with
for that...
> > I merely forgot to post the link.
>
> Riiiiiight.
And your proof that this *isn't* what occurred goes here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just as you "forgot" to look up the quotes in your .sig and
> merely accidentally are attributing someone else's words to me. You have a
> history - even a recent history, of attributing words to people who did not
> write them.
Your proof that I did what you claim goes here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Good luck in your pursuit of proving that I was attempting to pass these
> > words
> > off as my own. I guess if I was as kicked around as much as you are on this
> > ng
> > (and probably life in general) I'd grope for whatever openings I thought I
> > could get.
>
> LOL! You plagiarized and were caught, Steve. Deal with it.
Sorry, Snit, a continued assertion with no proof at all won't work here.
> >>>> -----
> >>>> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> >>>> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> >>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>
> >>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
> >>>> C,
> >>>> your argument looks like:
> >>>>
> >>>> A = B
> >>>> B = C
> >>>> A <> C
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> That is my notation, but Steve has not been wiling to say which of the
> >>>> steps he disagrees for and has argued for each.
> >>>
> >>> Yawn... you're lying... again. I've made it abundantly clear that if the
> >>> argument is a legal argument which purports guilt then a "Lack of proof"
> >>>
> >>> ---- as in **NO** proof whatsoever ----
> >>>
> >>> *should* lead to "Doubt" of the guilt allegation... in fact, in such an
> >>> allegation, a "Lack of proof" *should* lead to far more than merely
> >>> reasonable "Doubt"... it should lead to 100% "Doubt". An instance where
> >>> there is 100% "Doubt" *should* lead to a "Valid refutation" of a guilt
> >>> allegation. Everyone (but you) agreed with this logical assessment.
> >
> > Note: No comment from Snit.
Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
> >>> The math here stemmed from what you called your "legal" argument about
> >>> Bush's guilt. Here is what you said about the evidence for your argument
> >>> alleging his guilt:
> >>>
> >>> "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> >>> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> >>> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> >>> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> >>> logical sense, proof."
> >
> > Note: No comment from Snit.
Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
> >
> >>> You are shown not only defining proof for me... but unequivocally
> >>> stating that your evidence offers NONE... all the while claiming that
> >>> you have 'strongly supported' your claim. LOL!
> >
> > Note: No comment from Snit.
Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
> >
> >>> Conclusion: You politicized the Iraq war. Period. That was you entire
> >>> goal for this argument... you didn't care a whit about the philosophical
> >>> arguments involved, which is why you didn't entertain any of them. Of
> >>> course, it didn't help that you didn't understand any of them...
> >>> including what you yourself were arguing.
> >>
> >> All that babbling, Steve, and you have not stated which you disagree with:
> >
> > "Actually", I did that and more... it's only your inability to
> > comprehend what you've read that led you astray. But hey, it's still fun
> > to watch you avoid talking about your "evidence", your "Lack of proof"
> > and your 'strongly supported' argument. LOL!
> >
> >
> >> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> >> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> >> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>
> >> And, of course, you never will.
> >
> > Keep on huffin'!
>
> So which of those do you disagree with?
As I have clearly shown, it depends on what kind of an argument are you
talking about. I have given the answer for the kind of argument you
*said* you were arguing when I made the initial statements. I have again
gone over it for you in this thread as it pertains to that type of
argument. I will do it once more... just for you and your glue tube.
> You can just give a number if that
> is easier for you:
>
> 1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
In an argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof" (NO proof) leads to
more that mere " Doubt", it leads to a condition of 100% "Doubt"... at
least, it *should* lead to such a condition.
> 2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
An instance of 100% "Doubt", which is what would occur in the total
absence of proof (what you have termed as a "Lack of proof") *should*
lead to a "Valid Refutation" of the guilt allegation.
> 3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
Again, in an argument that purports guilt, a "Lack of proof" (NO proof)
*should* lead to a "Valid Refutation".
> Come on, Steve, take a stand! Which of those "logic statements" do you
> think is incorrect? I will give you a hint, #1 is called an argument from
> ignorance... and it is the very argument you repeatedly try to push!
No, Snit... in a legal argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof"
(NO proof) *should* lead to "Doubt"... at least, it does for all sane
and honest people... which, by the way, says a lot about you here.
>
> >>>> Here is a more complete
> >>>> description, including his quotes:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
> >>>> refutation
> >>>
> >>> LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
> >>> different grounds.
> >>
> >> But you are just not willing to embarrass me by linking to any of them,
> >> right? LOL!
> >
> > Read any of the arguments in the "Scary article" thread. Virtually all
> > of them refuted your ever changing argument;)
>
> Come on, Steve, how about a link? A quote? You pointed to a *thread* from
> about *two years ago* with literally hundreds of posts. Are you still stuck
> on some semantic nit you picked from that long ago? Can you point to the
> post?
I'm not interested in covering the same ground over and over to your
repeated denials. You can't even handle the simple math problem up above
with respect to your argument. I have zero interest in attempting to
cram the complexities of Constitutional law into a vessel that is
obviously already overloaded.
> >>>> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to
> >>>> this day, over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is
> >>>> still
> >>>> trying to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to
> >>>> attribute
> >>>> the same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he
> >>>> neglected
> >>>> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with
> >>>> the
> >>>> whole.
> >>>
> >>> Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
> >>
> >> Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two hours*
> >> ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>
> >> In it you make the claim:
> >>
> >> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
> >>
> >> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
> >
> > No, Snit... it is *your* claim that I am utilizing here.
>
> Please link and quote. Oh, wait, you can't.
So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
>
> > So, are you
> > finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
>
> I keep telling you:
Answer the question, Snit:
So you *are* retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
Why are you running away from answering it? You either agree or you
don't. I'm obviously providing you a chance to retract here.
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
>
> And you ask:
>
> So, are you finally retracting your statement that incest is a
> "sexual activity" now?
>
> How you can be so completely unable to understand such simple concepts is
> anyone's guess.
I understand them... but they are not relevant to what I'm discussing
with you.
> > Is that how I should interpret your actions here?
>
> You *should* try to understand what you read. You, of course, will not.
Well, I can't read what isn't written. You refuse to answer the
questions I am asking you. I can only conclude you are completely
incapable of proceeding or you don't want to for fear of where you'll
step... you've got that 'deer in the headlights' thing going on again;)
>
> >> A partial subset of the whole is
> >> not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities but
> >> is not synonymous with it.
> >>
> >> You also state:
> >>
> >> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
> >>
> >> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
> >
> > No, Snit... you're confused again. Here, I am referring to the
> > definition of the word "sex" that *you* provided for me.
>
> Link? Post? No doubt you are just playing another of your silly semantic
> games.
You don't remember the definition of the word "sex" you provided for me?
You said you got it from Tim Adams. Were you lying when you said that?
> >> A partial subset of the whole is
> >> not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but is
> >> not synonymous with it.
> >>
> >> You then concluded that incest is equal to sex
> >
> > I reached the only conclusion that your statement and provided
> > definition inferred.
>
> You reached the only conclusion *you* could reach, which has nothing to do
> with my relevant views. Here they are again:
Sigh...
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
I'm not interested in these views. I'm interested in you clarifying your
position as it pertains to your statement and your definition.
> Please note how Wally's views differ from mine. Here is how he responded to
> my quote to Elizabeth:
>
> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> Do you agree with me, with Wally, or neither? If neither, what is your
> view?
You answer my questions and I'll consider answering yours. I've only
asked about 1000 times... what are you so fucking afraid of? I've
answered your math questions... now it's your turn.
> >> - though you backpedaled and
> >> stated you did not believe *your* claim but were trying to attribute it to
> >> me (which is, of course, dishonest of you)! Do you have a better defense
> >> of your claim other than to say you were lying? I am guessing not, though
> >> you will babble greatly to try to obfuscate your ignorance and dishonesty.
> >>
> >> Also keep in mind that you responded to that post from about two hours ago
> >> -
> >> so your claim that I cannot show where I described you doing as I said is
> >> a
> >> clear lie. Do you *ever* tell the truth?
> >
> > WTF are you babbling about?
>
> Learn to understand what you read.
I read fine... but you are clearly babbling about things floating around
in your head that I've already told you didn't make much sense. Why do
you think I'm trying to get you to clarify your position? If you don't
like your current stance, I'm even offering you a chance to retract your
statement that incest is a "sexual activity" ... as well as your
provided definition for the word "sex". But you're terrified to make ANY
move at all;)
> >
> >>>> No doubt he will ignore that error of his and continue his
> >>>> never-ending quest to seek revenge.
> >>
> >> My mistake: Steve did not *ignore* his error, he side stepped discussing
> >> it
> >> and lied by claiming I could not show where his error occurred. I stand
> >> corrected. :)
> >
> >
> > You will always stand corrected, Snit... it's your lot in life;)
>
> Gee, I did not guess how you would react to your own lies. The horror!
Sigh...
Snit
> In article <C051DBCD.4A2EB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-EED548....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/30/06 6:40 PM:
>>
>>>> Gee, Steve, you were caught plagiarizing and then call me names. Whatever
>>>> helps you deal with your wounded ego, eh Steve? LOL! Why don't you just
>>>> join myself and the others who are honest and honorable and not put
>>>> yourself
>>>> in such positions?
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't claim I wrote what was written, Snit...
>>
>> Gee, you mean you do not start your every post with "I wrote the following"?
>> Nobody I know of does that, Steve. You did, however, post to a public forum
>> those words without attributing them to anyone. In other words you
>> plagiarized. Now that you have been caught you suddenly "forgot". LOL!
>
> It appears that your only 'proof' that I plagiarized anything is your
> assertion that I've done it. You seem to think you can prove that I lied
> when I say I forgot to post the link. Let's see what you come up with
> for that...
>
>>> I merely forgot to post the link.
>>
>> Riiiiiight.
>
> And your proof that this *isn't* what occurred goes here:
>
>> Just as you "forgot" to look up the quotes in your .sig and
>> merely accidentally are attributing someone else's words to me. You have a
>> history - even a recent history, of attributing words to people who did not
>> write them.
>
> Your proof that I did what you claim goes here:
>
Hey, Steve, look at the .sig you had in the very post you asked this:
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
You attributed quotes to me that I did not author. Do you make it so easy
to prove you a liar on purpose?
>
>>> Good luck in your pursuit of proving that I was attempting to pass these
>>> words
>>> off as my own. I guess if I was as kicked around as much as you are on this
>>> ng
>>> (and probably life in general) I'd grope for whatever openings I thought I
>>> could get.
>>
>> LOL! You plagiarized and were caught, Steve. Deal with it.
>
> Sorry, Snit, a continued assertion with no proof at all won't work here.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize
take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech
Tell me how what you did was anything but.
You will deny it until you turn blue, but you plagiarized and were caught.
Are you willing to move on or do you want to continue to deny your actions?
Logic does not change from argument to argument, Steve. Logic stays the
same: <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php>
"So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of
the principles of correct reasoning."
I will grant that the definition of logic can be debated and the above is
merely a "rough definition". In *any* context, Steve, the first of those
statements is a form of the argument from ignorance. It is, of course, one
of your favorite logical fallacies to try to push.
But lets humor you and allow you to limit yourself to the context of the
debate about Bush: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>. In regards
to that argument, which is the context in which you made each of those
claims, which do you disagree with?
> I have given the answer for the kind of argument you *said* you were arguing
> when I made the initial statements. I have again gone over it for you in this
> thread as it pertains to that type of argument. I will do it once more... just
> for you and your glue tube.
>
>> You can just give a number if that
>> is easier for you:
>>
>> 1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
>
> In an argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof" (NO proof) leads to
> more that mere " Doubt", it leads to a condition of 100% "Doubt"... at
> least, it *should* lead to such a condition.
What makes you think logic changed for an argument that purports guilt?
What about arguments that do not purport guilt? Do you accept logic there
but not in ones that do? What makes you think logic changes with your
whims?
>> 2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
>
> An instance of 100% "Doubt", which is what would occur in the total
> absence of proof (what you have termed as a "Lack of proof") *should*
> lead to a "Valid Refutation" of the guilt allegation.
I have never heard anyone rating the *percentage* of their doubt that way,
but if one were to, when one reached 100% or 0% doubt one would not have
doubt but certainty. And certainty, of course, is not doubt. Your silly
semantic games does make doubt become equal to (nor lead to) a valid
refutation!
>> 3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> Again, in an argument that purports guilt, a "Lack of proof" (NO proof)
> *should* lead to a "Valid Refutation".
A lack of proof does *not* equal a valid refutation. To claim otherwise, as
you do, is to support the argument from ignorance:
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
"The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved
false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true."
My apologies for stating this was tied to #1. It is tied to #3.
>> Come on, Steve, take a stand! Which of those "logic statements" do you
>> think is incorrect? I will give you a hint, #1 is called an argument from
>> ignorance... and it is the very argument you repeatedly try to push!
>
> No, Snit... in a legal argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof"
> (NO proof) *should* lead to "Doubt"... at least, it does for all sane
> and honest people... which, by the way, says a lot about you here.
Your silly games do not refute my argument against Bush:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
>>>>>> Here is a more complete
>>>>>> description, including his quotes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6b97>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note how not only has Steve not been able to find a reasoned
>>>>>> refutation
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Several people (besides you) refuted your argument on several
>>>>> different grounds.
>>>>
>>>> But you are just not willing to embarrass me by linking to any of them,
>>>> right? LOL!
>>>
>>> Read any of the arguments in the "Scary article" thread. Virtually all
>>> of them refuted your ever changing argument;)
>>
>> Come on, Steve, how about a link? A quote? You pointed to a *thread* from
>> about *two years ago* with literally hundreds of posts. Are you still stuck
>> on some semantic nit you picked from that long ago? Can you point to the
>> post?
>
> I'm not interested in covering the same ground over and over to your
> repeated denials. You can't even handle the simple math problem up above
> with respect to your argument. I have zero interest in attempting to
> cram the complexities of Constitutional law into a vessel that is
> obviously already overloaded.
As predicted: Steve choked. Not a single quote or link to anything I ever
said that refuted my argument against Bush, as Steve claimed.
>
>>>>>> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to this day,
>>>>>> over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is still trying
>>>>>> to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute the
>>>>>> same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he neglected
>>>>>> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the
>>>>>> whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
>>>>
>>>> Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two hours*
>>>> ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>>
>>>> In it you make the claim:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
>>>>
>>>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
>>>
>>> No, Snit... it is *your* claim that I am utilizing here.
>>
>> Please link and quote. Oh, wait, you can't.
>
> So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
>
LOL! I look forward to your argument to the contrary. Keep in mind I keep
telling you:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
And you keep proving you cannot understand those simple comments by asking:
So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
Where the hell did you get that from, Steve? Have you considered taking a
simple reading comprehension class?
>>> So, are you
>>> finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
>>
>> I keep telling you:
>
> Answer the question, Snit:
>
> So you *are* retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> Why are you running away from answering it? You either agree or you
> don't. I'm obviously providing you a chance to retract here.
Well, Steve, you are just in circus mode. You ask questions. I answer
them. I ask you questions. You run. You then ask your *same* questions
over again. At least you are not snipping and running, but come on, Steve,
grow a damned backbone and stop running around one of the rings in your
circus!
>> Incest is a subset of sex
>> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
>> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
>> comment to Elizabeth:
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
>> by anyone other than perverts
>>
>> And you ask:
>>
>> So, are you finally retracting your statement that incest is a
>> "sexual activity" now?
>>
>> How you can be so completely unable to understand such simple concepts is
>> anyone's guess.
>
> I understand them... but they are not relevant to what I'm discussing
> with you.
Gee, you claim to understand them but keep asking:
So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
LOL!
>
>>> Is that how I should interpret your actions here?
>>
>> You *should* try to understand what you read. You, of course, will not.
>
> Well, I can't read what isn't written. You refuse to answer the
> questions I am asking you. I can only conclude you are completely
> incapable of proceeding or you don't want to for fear of where you'll
> step... you've got that 'deer in the headlights' thing going on again;)
LOL! Round and round Steve goes... when and where he will stop, Nobody
knows!
>
>>
>>>> A partial subset of the whole is
>>>> not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities but
>>>> is not synonymous with it.
>>>>
>>>> You also state:
>>>>
>>>> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
>>>>
>>>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
>>>
>>> No, Snit... you're confused again. Here, I am referring to the
>>> definition of the word "sex" that *you* provided for me.
>>
>> Link? Post? No doubt you are just playing another of your silly semantic
>> games.
>
> You don't remember the definition of the word "sex" you provided for me?
> You said you got it from Tim Adams. Were you lying when you said that?
Link? Post? What definition are you talking about? Are you claiming Tim
Adams claimed sex and sexual activities are the same and I merely agreed
with him? If so, take it up with Tim!
>
>>>> A partial subset of the whole is
>>>> not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but is
>>>> not synonymous with it.
>>>>
>>>> You then concluded that incest is equal to sex
>>>
>>> I reached the only conclusion that your statement and provided
>>> definition inferred.
>>
>> You reached the only conclusion *you* could reach, which has nothing to do
>> with my relevant views. Here they are again:
>
> Sigh...
Yes, your game is getting tiresome.
>
>> Incest is a subset of sex
>> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
>> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
>> comment to Elizabeth:
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
>> by anyone other than perverts
>
> I'm not interested in these views. I'm interested in you clarifying your
> position as it pertains to your statement and your definition.
What definition? What statement? You claim to be interested in my
statements but when I repeat them for you they suddenly are of no interest
to you. Please make up your mind - are my statements about sex and incest
of interest to you or not?
>
>> Please note how Wally's views differ from mine. Here is how he responded to
>> my quote to Elizabeth:
>>
>> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>>
>> Do you agree with me, with Wally, or neither? If neither, what is your
>> view?
>
> You answer my questions and I'll consider answering yours.
Done. I answered your questions long ago. Your lies to the contrary do not
change that.
You, however, will *not* answer my questions. You are that predictable.
You and Wally share the trait of not taking a stand on easy questions. Oh
well.
> I've only asked about 1000 times...
And you are made I answered only 500 of those times?
> what are you so fucking afraid of?
And now poor Stevie starts swearing. What makes you think my answering your
same question only 500 times shows fear?
> I've
> answered your math questions... now it's your turn.
LOL! You waffled and claimed that the "math" depends on the nature of what
the "math" references.
Two plus two is four, Steve, no matter what you are counting.
Your posts are getting long, repetitive and tiresome. Expect trimming in
the future if your habits continue. I have given you a great deal of leeway
here based on your inability to understand reasonable snipping, but my
patience is being stretched.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Note: No comment by Snit... and no proof for his claim. Gee, what a
shock;)
> >> Just as you "forgot" to look up the quotes in your .sig and
> >> merely accidentally are attributing someone else's words to me. You have
> >> a
> >> history - even a recent history, of attributing words to people who did
> >> not
> >> write them.
> >
> > Your proof that I did what you claim goes here:
History? You mean like you having a history of being a liar and getting
called on it and then denying it... as done by virtually every regular
poster in this ng? Or are we talking about the kind of "history" where
I've only done this a couple or so times and only with you to show you
what the crap you do to others feels like? I'm betting it's the latter;)
> Hey, Steve, look at the .sig you had in the very post you asked this:
>
> "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
> "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
> like myself" - Snit
>
> You attributed quotes to me that I did not author. Do you make it so easy
> to prove you a liar on purpose?
Are you claiming that I knew you didn't author them when I put them in
my sig (as you've done in the past)? As I said previously, if you can
show that I knew this when I put it there, I'll consider removing it.
> >
> >>> Good luck in your pursuit of proving that I was attempting to pass these
> >>> words
> >>> off as my own. I guess if I was as kicked around as much as you are on
> >>> this
> >>> ng
> >>> (and probably life in general) I'd grope for whatever openings I thought
> >>> I
> >>> could get.
> >>
> >> LOL! You plagiarized and were caught, Steve. Deal with it.
> >
> > Sorry, Snit, a continued assertion with no proof at all won't work here.
>
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize
> take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech
>
> Tell me how what you did was anything but.
I already have... but you are so bent on placing blame on everyone for
everything you aren't able to see realities like forgetting to post an
attribution link. Of course, you have been known to overlook such minor
offenses for other posters... like in the case of Josh and his obvious
outright lies. But hey... it's not like you're not a hypocrite or
anything. LOL!
You may notice that the person to whom I addressed that post isn't
accusing me of plagiarism. You'll also notice that he asked me to
clarify before he shot from the hip like you are here. I gave him the
answer he asked for and that was the end of it. But it's just the
beginning for you... it's really all you left have on this newsgroup;)
> You will deny it until you turn blue, but you plagiarized and were caught.
> Are you willing to move on or do you want to continue to deny your actions?
I have no need to deny plagiarizing anything. Furthermore, I'm still
waiting for you to produce your proof that I plagiarized as opposed to
merely forgetting the attribution link. So, no... I don't wish to move
past the stage where you are supposed to provide proof for yet another
of your fantasies. So, let's see your proof now, Snit. You can put it
here (will I have long to wait?):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: *STILL* no comment from Snit.
> >>>>> The math here stemmed from what you called your "legal" argument about
> >>>>> Bush's guilt. Here is what you said about the evidence for your
> >>>>> argument
> >>>>> alleging his guilt:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> >>>>> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> >>>>> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> >>>>> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> logical sense, proof."
> >>>
> >>> Note: No comment from Snit.
> >
> > Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
Note: *STILL* no comment from Snit.
> >>>
> >>>>> You are shown not only defining proof for me... but unequivocally
> >>>>> stating that your evidence offers NONE... all the while claiming that
> >>>>> you have 'strongly supported' your claim. LOL!
> >>>
> >>> Note: No comment from Snit.
> >
> > Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
Note: *STILL* no comment from Snit.
> >>>
> >>>>> Conclusion: You politicized the Iraq war. Period. That was you entire
> >>>>> goal for this argument... you didn't care a whit about the
> >>>>> philosophical
> >>>>> arguments involved, which is why you didn't entertain any of them. Of
> >>>>> course, it didn't help that you didn't understand any of them...
> >>>>> including what you yourself were arguing.
> >>>>
> >>>> All that babbling, Steve, and you have not stated which you disagree
> >>>> with:
> >>>
> >>> "Actually", I did that and more... it's only your inability to
> >>> comprehend what you've read that led you astray. But hey, it's still fun
> >>> to watch you avoid talking about your "evidence", your "Lack of proof"
> >>> and your 'strongly supported' argument. LOL!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> >>>> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> >>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>
> >>>> And, of course, you never will.
> >>>
> >>> Keep on huffin'!
> >>
> >> So which of those do you disagree with?
> >
> > As I have clearly shown, it depends on what kind of an argument are you
> > talking about.
>
> Logic does not change from argument to argument, Steve.
So, to you, an argument that purports guilt stands when there is
absolutely no proof that the person is guilty? Why am I not surprised to
see you hold such a bizarre version of "Logic".
You are guilty of being on 12 different medicines right now
simultaneously... and they are wreaking havoc on your nervous system. I
have evidence that strongly supports this assertion but it doesn't
"actually" prove a single thing. LOL!
> Logic stays the
> same: <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php>
> "So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of
> the principles of correct reasoning."
Correct reasoning would not label a person as being guilty with
absolutely ZERO proof... no matter how much glue you've sniffed.
> I will grant that the definition of logic can be debated and the above is
> merely a "rough definition". In *any* context, Steve, the first of those
> statements is a form of the argument from ignorance. It is, of course, one
> of your favorite logical fallacies to try to push.
No, Snit... there is nor 'logical' argument where anyone can
unequivocally state that a person *is* guilty where there *is*
absolutely NO proof. If this discussion doesn't prove how far gone you
are nothing can. Maybe my 12 medicine argument is accurate...
> But lets humor you and allow you to limit yourself to the context of the
> debate about Bush:
Limit myself? Snit, do you not recall it was the Bush argument which
spawned your silly bullshit here? Geezus, your brain really is gone...
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>. In regards
> to that argument, which is the context in which you made each of those
> claims, which do you disagree with?
I've stated my position... even more than once in this very thread.
> > I have given the answer for the kind of argument you *said* you were
> > arguing
> > when I made the initial statements. I have again gone over it for you in
> > this
> > thread as it pertains to that type of argument. I will do it once more...
> > just
> > for you and your glue tube.
> >
> >> You can just give a number if that
> >> is easier for you:
> >>
> >> 1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> >
> > In an argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof" (NO proof) leads to
> > more that mere " Doubt", it leads to a condition of 100% "Doubt"... at
> > least, it *should* lead to such a condition.
>
> What makes you think logic changed for an argument that purports guilt?
What makes you think arguments that purports guilt remain unrefuted when
there is an absence of ANY proof whatsoever?
> What about arguments that do not purport guilt? Do you accept logic there
> but not in ones that do? What makes you think logic changes with your
> whims?
What I really think is you need to cap off the glue tube and put the
paper bags away and go get some sleep.
> >> 2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> >
> > An instance of 100% "Doubt", which is what would occur in the total
> > absence of proof (what you have termed as a "Lack of proof") *should*
> > lead to a "Valid Refutation" of the guilt allegation.
>
> I have never heard anyone rating the *percentage* of their doubt that way,
> but if one were to, when one reached 100% or 0% doubt one would not have
> doubt but certainty. And certainty, of course, is not doubt. Your silly
> semantic games does make doubt become equal to (nor lead to) a valid
> refutation!
Certainty is not doubt... what a revelation! I really don't know what
I'd do without you, Snit <rolls eyes>
> >> 3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >
> > Again, in an argument that purports guilt, a "Lack of proof" (NO proof)
> > *should* lead to a "Valid Refutation".
>
> A lack of proof does *not* equal a valid refutation.
You asked me what *my* position is and I have given it to you. If you
wish to consider someone guilty when there is a "Lack of proof" (NO
proof) that is your business. You flatly told me your evidence offered
NO proof for your assertion that Bush is guilty:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
> To claim otherwise, as
> you do, is to support the argument from ignorance:
That's your take. I think it's extremely ignorant to claim that a person
*is* guilty when there *is* a "Lack of proof" (NO proof).
> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
> "The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
> when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved
> false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true."
>
> My apologies for stating this was tied to #1. It is tied to #3.
>
> >> Come on, Steve, take a stand! Which of those "logic statements" do you
> >> think is incorrect? I will give you a hint, #1 is called an argument from
> >> ignorance... and it is the very argument you repeatedly try to push!
> >
> > No, Snit... in a legal argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof"
> > (NO proof) *should* lead to "Doubt"... at least, it does for all sane
> > and honest people... which, by the way, says a lot about you here.
>
> Your silly games do not refute my argument against Bush:
It's not a game, Snit... it's called reality.
You've been given dozens... and you deny them without even understanding
them. Look at how you are handling yourself in this thread... do you
seriously think I'd get into something more complicated with a pinhead
like you on this again? LOL! You're more delusional that I thought;)
> >
> >>>>>> with my analyses of his comments he is so mad about it that to this
> >>>>>> day,
> >>>>>> over 2 years since I pointed out his illogical claims, he is still
> >>>>>> trying
> >>>>>> to get revenge. In this very discussion he has tried to attribute the
> >>>>>> same erroneous proof onto me, but it turns out he blew it: he
> >>>>>> neglected
> >>>>>> to understand that a partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> whole.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Yet, miraculously, you can't show where this occurred;)
> >>>>
> >>>> Discussed in more than adequate detail in this post from about *two
> >>>> hours*
> >>>> ago: <C051B2E7.4A291%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>>>
> >>>> In it you make the claim:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 - *You* said that incest was a "sexual activity". A = B
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
> >>>
> >>> No, Snit... it is *your* claim that I am utilizing here.
> >>
> >> Please link and quote. Oh, wait, you can't.
> >
> > So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> >
> LOL! I look forward to your argument to the contrary.
Then retract your statement as you shall have it. I don't see you doing
anything but babbling on and on here. Are you now going to unequivocally
state that incest is not a "sexual activity"? Or are you going to deny
that you have made references that it is a "sexual activity"? Or are you
going to sit there like a deer in the headlights as you have been;)
> Keep in mind I keep
> telling you:
>
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
>
> And you keep proving you cannot understand those simple comments by asking:
>
> So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
>
> Where the hell did you get that from, Steve? Have you considered taking a
> simple reading comprehension class?
So you are not retracting it?
> >>> So, are you
> >>> finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
> >>
> >> I keep telling you:
> >
> > Answer the question, Snit:
> >
> > So you *are* retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> > Why are you running away from answering it? You either agree or you
> > don't. I'm obviously providing you a chance to retract here.
>
> Well, Steve, you are just in circus mode. You ask questions. I answer
> them. I ask you questions. You run. You then ask your *same* questions
> over again. At least you are not snipping and running, but come on, Steve,
> grow a damned backbone and stop running around one of the rings in your
> circus!
No, Snit... I am the one answering questions here. You are the one doing
the running... anyone can see this, though, I do thank you for putting
it into google as clearly as you are here.
> >> Incest is a subset of sex
> >> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> >> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
> >>
> >> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
> >>
> >> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> >> comment to Elizabeth:
> >> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> >> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
> >>
> >> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> >> by anyone other than perverts
> >>
> >> And you ask:
> >>
> >> So, are you finally retracting your statement that incest is a
> >> "sexual activity" now?
> >>
> >> How you can be so completely unable to understand such simple concepts is
> >> anyone's guess.
> >
> > I understand them... but they are not relevant to what I'm discussing
> > with you.
>
> Gee, you claim to understand them but keep asking:
I understand what you are doing. I also understand why you are doing it;)
>
> So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
>
> LOL!
> >
> >>> Is that how I should interpret your actions here?
> >>
> >> You *should* try to understand what you read. You, of course, will not.
> >
> > Well, I can't read what isn't written. You refuse to answer the
> > questions I am asking you. I can only conclude you are completely
> > incapable of proceeding or you don't want to for fear of where you'll
> > step... you've got that 'deer in the headlights' thing going on again;)
>
> LOL! Round and round Steve goes... when and where he will stop, Nobody
> knows!
"Actually", you are the one going round and round here.
> >>
> >>>> A partial subset of the whole is
> >>>> not synonymous with the whole: Incest is a subset of sexual activities
> >>>> but
> >>>> is not synonymous with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> You also state:
> >>>>
> >>>> 2 - *You* defined the word "sex" for me as "sexual activity". B = C
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note that your claim is ignorant.
> >>>
> >>> No, Snit... you're confused again. Here, I am referring to the
> >>> definition of the word "sex" that *you* provided for me.
> >>
> >> Link? Post? No doubt you are just playing another of your silly semantic
> >> games.
> >
> > You don't remember the definition of the word "sex" you provided for me?
> > You said you got it from Tim Adams. Were you lying when you said that?
>
> Link? Post? What definition are you talking about?
The definition of the word "sex" that you provided for me when I asked
you for it.
> Are you claiming Tim
> Adams claimed sex and sexual activities are the same and I merely agreed
> with him? If so, take it up with Tim!
You're confused... again... I don't care where you got it. It was *you*
that provided it for me when I asked you... this means you were abiding
by that definition; where you got it from is unimportant.
> >>>> A partial subset of the whole is
> >>>> not synonymous with the whole: Sex is a subset of sexual activities but
> >>>> is
> >>>> not synonymous with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> You then concluded that incest is equal to sex
> >>>
> >>> I reached the only conclusion that your statement and provided
> >>> definition inferred.
> >>
> >> You reached the only conclusion *you* could reach, which has nothing to do
> >> with my relevant views. Here they are again:
> >
> > Sigh...
>
> Yes, your game is getting tiresome.
The game here is yours... and you're really not very good at it.
> >
> >> Incest is a subset of sex
> >> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> >> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
> >>
> >> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
> >>
> >> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> >> comment to Elizabeth:
> >> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> >> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
> >>
> >> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> >> by anyone other than perverts
> >
> > I'm not interested in these views. I'm interested in you clarifying your
> > position as it pertains to your statement and your definition.
>
> What definition? What statement? You claim to be interested in my
> statements but when I repeat them for you they suddenly are of no interest
> to you. Please make up your mind - are my statements about sex and incest
> of interest to you or not?
You told me that incest is a "sexual activity". You provided me a
definition for the word "sex" that defined it as "sexual activity".
Think you can stay coherent enough from one post to the next to remember
all that;)
> >> Please note how Wally's views differ from mine. Here is how he responded
> >> to
> >> my quote to Elizabeth:
> >>
> >> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> >> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> >> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> >> synonymous!"
> >>
> >> Do you agree with me, with Wally, or neither? If neither, what is your
> >> view?
> >
> > You answer my questions and I'll consider answering yours.
>
> Done.
I see no answer to the questions I am asking in this thread.
> I answered your questions long ago. Your lies to the contrary do not
> change that.
You have shown no lies I have told with anything resembling proof on
this. Of course, given your penchant for considering people "guilty"
with absolutely "no proof", it's easy to see why you keep calling people
"liars" while never "actually" providing any proof for it.
> You, however, will *not* answer my questions. You are that predictable.
> You and Wally share the trait of not taking a stand on easy questions. Oh
> well.
>
> > I've only asked about 1000 times...
>
> And you are made I answered only 500 of those times?
??
> > what are you so fucking afraid of?
>
> And now poor Stevie starts swearing. What makes you think my answering your
> same question only 500 times shows fear?
You have yet to answer the questions I've asked in this thread. You're
terrified of taking any kind of solid stance regarding these questions.
Anyone can see that.
> > I've
> > answered your math questions... now it's your turn.
>
> LOL! You waffled and claimed that the "math" depends on the nature of what
> the "math" references.
I've answered your questions... you are running from mine.
> Two plus two is four, Steve, no matter what you are counting.
Math doesn't work well in legal arguments. Of course, no one would
expect you to know that;)
That's because I'm not snipping all your crap as I should be doing.
> Expect trimming in
> the future if your habits continue.
Not a problem...I'm quite used to you "trimming" what you can't or won't
face. Cut and paste is easy enough to do.
> I have given you a great deal of leeway
> here based on your inability to understand reasonable snipping, but my
> patience is being stretched.
What's "being stretched" here is your ability to conduct a logical
exchange. You refuse to answer simple questions while expecting to have
all your questions answered. In other words, you are a one way
conversationalist who likes mainly to listen to himself... this goes
hand in hand with your narcissistic tendencies that so many people have
commented on in this newsgroup.
--
Snit
Steve, your post is long and boring. Feel free to snip the above in your
inevitable reply (and, if you want, this paragraph).
Here are at least some of the facts you are lying about and trying to
obfuscate:
1) Your .sig is a lie:
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
You attributed quotes to me that I did not author. Your defense is to
insinuate that perhaps you merely made an error and did not know you were
falsely attributing quotes to me, but you have been repeatedly told I did
not author those quotes. Every time you attribute those quotes to me you
are lying. I do not care if you were ignorant and not dishonest when you
first started posting those false statements, you have been clearly and
knowingly repeating false claims; in other words you have been lying.
2) You took material without referencing from someone else's writing - in
other words you plagiarized
<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize>. Only after you were
caught did you point to the site where you plagiarized your material from.
Your "defense" is that you plagiarized out of ignorance or error and not
malice. Being that you have a history of lying and falsely attributing
people's words (see #1) there is no reason to believe you, but it really
does not matter. I am not interested in the reasons why you plagiarized; if
you want to claim you were ignorant of your actions that is fine by me!
3) In reference to:
-----
Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and
"Valid Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
-----
A) Logic does not change from argument to argument, even if you really,
really want it to. This is true even if the argument has the conclusion
that someone has broken the law or if you make dishonest accusations of
recreational drug abuse as you do repeatedly.
B) Doubt is not generally measured in percentages, but if it were then 0% or
100% "doubt" would cease to be "doubt"; it would instead be "certainty".
When you jump from the concept of "doubt" to your silly made-up concept of
"100% doubt" you are jumping topics from doubt to certainty and are being
dishonest.
C) A lack of proof does *not* equal a valid refutation. The idea that it
does is called an Argument from Ignorance. This is not merely my "take" as
you dishonestly insinuate, it is a well known logical fallacy - one I have
given you many links to over time.
4) Your silly games do not honestly refute my argument against Bush:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
5) I have never refuted my argument against Bush - and your claims to the
contrary are lies. Note how you completely fail to offer any link or quote
of my doing so.
6) In reference to the following statements:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
You have repeatedly and ignorantly asked me:
So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
Your question does not follow from these statements and is a clear
indication of your inability to understand what you read. The answer to
your question, of course, is clear in the statements above.
Other than the definitions implied in the relationships above I do not
believe I have offered you any definitions of sex or incest. You keep
claiming otherwise but can neither quote nor link to any such definition.
You claim that my statements above are of no interest to you but you keep
asking me about them. Clearly you are lying.
In reference to those statements Wally has stated:
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
You are not willing to say if you agree or disagree with his claims, even
though you have been repeatedly asked.
----------
You will likely babble on, but the facts above will not change. This is
true no matter how much you want them to. If you just repeat your same BS
over do not be surprised if I do not waste my time re-writing the above
facts and merely copy and paste them.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Wally
paul-62B93A.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "Paul"
<pa...@vRiEsMcOeVrEallogic.com> wrote:
> In article <300320061615277356%Bus...@Work.ru>,
> BusyGuy <Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Wally...Snit...Steve...
>>
>> I seem to have unintentionally stumbled into a long-running and intense
>> flame war. Sorry, guys. I didn't mean to stir anyone up.
>>
>> I haven't _studied_ what you're arguing about but I did _glance_ at the
>> posts. Can I stick my nose in where it might not be wanted and offer a
>> small opinion?
>>
>> Could it be that, once again, two (or more) reasonably nice guys with
>> much in common are arguing because each has a slightly differnet
>> understanding of some words in the language?
>>
>> Could it be that there is not so much a difference of opinion about
>> whether or not "sex and incest are synonymous" as rather an unnoticed
>> disagreement about the meaning of the word "synonymous".
>>
>> I haven't noticed anyone disagreeing that incest is sexual activity
>> between related persons. It may be more than just that but, in the
>> absence of sexual activity, perhaps we do not have a case of incest. In
>> my opinion, sexual activity is a prerequisite for an assertion of
>> incest.
>>
>> Now look at the argument that sex is or is not "synonymous" with sexual
>> activity.
>>
>> I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
>> inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
>>
>> I haven't noticed anyone claiming that all of sexual activity is
>> incestuous. On the other hand, I think I'm safe to say that all
>> incestuous activity does involve sex.
>>
>> In my opinion, sex is an inseparable part of incest but incest is not
>> an inseparable part of sex.
>>
>> In other words, incest is a subset of sex.
>>
>> As such, i think it's true that "sex" and "incest" cannot be
>> synonymous. They can be related (he he) in other ways but not by
>> synonymity.
>>
>> What say you?
>
> I think it's a case of bilateral synonymity in Snit's case: if A is
> synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A.
> Since "sex" is not synonymous with "incest", "incest" must not be synonymous
> with "sex".
You are correct Snit has indeed stated that!...
"Wally, like his mentor Steve, is arguing against mathematics. He fails to
understand that:
If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
------------
I would appreciate your comments on the usage of synonymous in the following
quote.
"I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
experience was certainly not synonymous."-Snit
> On the other hand, there are those who think in terms of unilateral
> synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
> A...
I certainly identify with that line of thinking!
> at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
Quite so!
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-F734E9.14...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <C0520BFE.30CD%wa...@wally.world.net>, Wally
> <wa...@wally.world.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/3/06 10:02 PM, in article
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-334D80.09...@news.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
>>> Except it doesn't mean "identical"
>>>
>>> synonymous adj
>>> 1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in the same
>>> language,
>>> or being an alternative name for somebody or something
>>> 2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by another word
>>
>> His definition is more akin to a synonym rather than synonymous Tim!
>
> Actually I was thinking it was more of a 'snit' definition.
There were distinct similarities to be sure!
Snit
C052FF61.31F1%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/31/06 12:46 AM:
Keep in mind the context, Wally.
Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
There is no doubt that in context your claims *are* repulsive. And before
you deny the above is the context, keep in mind your admission
Snit wrote..
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex".
While you failed to quote the full ellipses point, treated it like a period,
and snipped the sentence in half, clearly you were in reference to the same
sentence. You then admitted I was "supplied" with a definition that was not
in context and still did not help your case (nobody has suggested that the
concept of incest would not bring to mind sex, the question was why the
concept of sex lead Elizabeth to bring up incest). In the very same post
you admit I have stated "Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the
subject of sex. That has never been in question."
Here is your post with your admissions: <http://snipurl.com/jzig>. The sad
thing is even as you admit to the above you *still* flamed and trolled me.
The facts remain the same, no matter what games you play:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
In regards to those facts, Wally, it is you who has jumped in to disagree
and claim "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex" and many other
perverted comments. Your silly semantic games have back fired on you. Do
you still hold to the idea that in the context of my statement to Elizabeth
that you find incest to be synonymous with sex?
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> They may be playing that game, but that does not fit with the initial
> context:
>
> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> Nor does it fit with Steve's "proof":
>
> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
>
> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
>
> It is clear that for most people incest is different enough from sex to
> *not* be synonymous with it, no matter how many times Wally says otherwise.
I doubt I will get any better response from you than I did previously Snit,
but I will ask again...
What if anything do you consider incest to be synonymous with? Anything?
Everything? Nothing?...what!
In the interest of you appearing to be consistent I will remind you of how
you used the term previously...
"I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
experience was certainly not synonymous."-Snit
"If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
--
"My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so. Only
> a pervert would claim that incest and sex are close enough to be considered
> synonymous.
LOL!
> It is possible, hover, that Wally did not understand the context when he
> jumped into the conversation.
>
> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
Who could not understand such a simple statement?
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
My comments address your simple statement perfectly!
> If you are right that Wally did not understand the context of my comments,
> however, why do you think he has not admitted to it all this time?
You decide after all it is your fantasy! ;=)
> Please
> note, for what it is worth, that Wally has admitted that the above quote of
> mine was what he was referencing,
I would have thought that was obvious!
> though he dishonestly snips the text after
> the ellipses. Why do you think he feels the need to do that?
Because your interpretations based on your comprehension problems are simply
not relevant, I only wish to deal with what you believe, not what you wish
to assume someone else believes!
--
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
Snit
> On 31/3/06 6:02 AM, in article C051A39D.4A265%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>
>> They may be playing that game, but that does not fit with the initial
>> context:
>>
>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
In the context of my statement to Elizabeth, which was the original context,
do you *still* hold to your views that incest is synonymous to sex? If so I
can assure you your claim this is what "most people" think is incorrect.
>>
>> Nor does it fit with Steve's "proof":
>>
>> "Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
>> If A = B and B = C, then A = C"
>>
>> He tried to argue that Incest (A) equals, to him, Sex (C).
>>
>> It is clear that for most people incest is different enough from sex to
>> *not* be synonymous with it, no matter how many times Wally says otherwise.
>
> I doubt I will get any better response from you than I did previously Snit,
> but I will ask again...
I assume you are asking this question within the context of the larger
conversation which came from my commenting to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
I state this only because of your tendency to try to play semantic and other
similar games and pretend the context is different allowing other
definitions to apply. Clearly when you state comments from other contexts
those would not be assumed to be in the given context, but if no context is
given I will assume you are sticking to this.
The sad thing is in order to have any type conversation with you such
disclaimers are needed - and even then there is no guarantee you are not
pushing some silly game.
> What if anything do you consider incest to be synonymous with? Anything?
> Everything? Nothing?...what!
Am I now your personal thesaurus? What the hell, even though you run from
my questions I shall play your game: Nothing comes to mind. I am not sure
what you are getting at; maybe these simple facts will help you:
Incest is a subset of sex
Sex is a subset of sexual activities
Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
[This is true even if the subset brings to mind the whole]
Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Does that help you deal with your semantic quandary? Not sure why you have
such difficultly with such common words; is English not your first language?
> In the interest of you appearing to be consistent I will remind you of how
> you used the term previously...
At least you admit you are changing the context away from the conversation
about incest and sex. Not sure what you hope to gain by leaving the context
of the discussion behind, but I commend your honesty in doing so. Do keep
in mind that in other contexts words can have somewhat different meanings,
though, it turns out, your context change does not seem to result in that
here.
> "I used to teach Windows users to use a Mac and vice versa. More often than
> not the Windows people loved the Mac... the reverse was not true. The
> experience was certainly not synonymous."-Snit
>
> "If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
Windows folks generally liked the Mac
Mac folks generally did not like Windows
The two groups were not alike nor nearly alike in their general view of the
"other" platform; they were not synonymous. I will mention the following
only because it clearly confuses you greatly:
The experience of the Mac group was not synonymous with that of the
Windows group.
The experience of the Windows group was not synonymous with that of
the Mac group.
If, however, they had seen the "other" platform in similar or identical
ways, it would be fair to say their views were synonymous (or nearly
so). This fits perfectly with the fact that if A is synonymous with
B then B is synonymous with A.
Sex and incest are different enough so that only a pervert would see
one as being synonymous with the other. If, however, they were - in
some bizarro pervert world - to become synonymous with one another,
it would not matter which you stated first: if A is synonymous with B
then B is synonymous with A. [And no, I do not want to know if you
live in that "bizarro pervert world", as you have implied in the past]
Clearly you thought you were making some grand point that you would be able
to "prove" I was using the term in some different way. Not that this would
be wrong, being that the context was so different, but in the end it turns
out I used the word very much the same way in both contexts. Where did you
get lost?
Snit
> On 31/3/06 6:14 AM, in article C051A652.4A26C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so. Only
>> a pervert would claim that incest and sex are close enough to be considered
>> synonymous.
>
> LOL!
>
>> It is possible, hover, that Wally did not understand the context when he
>> jumped into the conversation.
>>
>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>
> Who could not understand such a simple statement?
>
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Please note how you snipped the quote in the middle. Why did you do that?
Do try to read the quote completely:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"... The
fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>
> My comments address your simple statement perfectly!
>
>> If you are right that Wally did not understand the context of my comments,
>> however, why do you think he has not admitted to it all this time?
>
> You decide after all it is your fantasy! ;=)
>
>> Please
>> note, for what it is worth, that Wally has admitted that the above quote of
>> mine was what he was referencing,
>
> I would have thought that was obvious!
>
>> though he dishonestly snips the text after
>> the ellipses. Why do you think he feels the need to do that?
>
> Because your interpretations based on your comprehension problems are simply
> not relevant, I only wish to deal with what you believe, not what you wish
> to assume someone else believes!
I am not interested in your excuses, your lies, nor your games. The fact
remains that the context of the discussion is my comment to Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"... The
fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
And in *that* context you have repeatedly stated you find incest to be
synonymous with sex. Do you *still* hold to that perverted view?
BusyGuy
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
> > inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
>
> While it can, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that. Look at the example
> used in this definition:
>
> "Hollywood was synonymous with immorality"
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synonymous
>
> This infers *all* of Hollywood is immoral.
>
> And look at this reference:
>
> "Boston is synonymous with marathon"
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=synonymous
>
> Is Boston "one-and-the-same-thing" as is a marathon?
>
>
> I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
Tim said much the same:
> Except it doesn't mean "identical"
Wally added:
> His definition is more akin to a synonym rather than synonymous Tim!
Wally, both words come, clearly, from the same root. One is a noun, the
other an adjective, that's all.
Steve and Tim, I was getting ready to apologise and say that you are
right and I was wrong. Then I looked at Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous>
For now, I think I'll stick to my guns and continue to claim that, by
and large, "synonymous" means, to most people, and in most
circumstances, "identical (that is, with respect to the meaning of two
words)"
Wiki: "...many people feel that the synonyms they use are identical in
meaning for all practical purposes"
I think the examples you plucked, Hollywood, Boston, are metaphorical
uses. Clearly, Hollywood cannot _literally_ be synonymous with
immorality even taking your more-liberal definition of the word.
May I be a nerd? since we're talking about the meaning of words, you
should've used "imply" not "infer." I'm not trying to be a smart-ass,
I'm smiling as I type, hoping that this conversation is staying on a
friendly plane.
Paul had an interestig comment:
> there are those who think in terms of unilateral
> synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous
> with
> A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with
> "incest"!
Paul, I would be grateful for an example. I can't think of how this
might work.
Snit, your comments were also welcome. Could it be that Steve is upset
because he sees you playing the man, not the ball?
Michael, you sure had _me_ spinning. I see a coment at Wiki that is
similar to what you/Putnam say:
"Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same
meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because
etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage,
etc. make them unique."
At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a newcomer in this
group and I don't yet know how tolerant the regs are, of off-topic
waffle. So now might be a good time for me to shut up.
Thank you, gentlemen and...um...Elizabot if female, for putting up with
me and my waffle.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
> Keep in mind the context, Wally.
>
> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> There is no doubt that in context your claims *are* repulsive.
I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them in. I
have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the context or
who I am stating them to.
> And before
> you deny the above is the context, keep in mind your admission
>
> Snit wrote..
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex".
>
> While you failed to quote the full ellipses point, treated it like a period,
> and snipped the sentence in half, clearly you were in reference to the same
> sentence.
Then why did you capitalize 'The' in mid sentence Snit?
"Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem."
I treated that as two sentences because that is how I see it, and my
comments were clearly addressing the first one!
It is obvious that it is your belief wrt incest and sex that my comments
address, why you would think I was interested in your delusions about
Elizabot is a mystery to me, are you saying that when you said....
""Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"" who you were
stating it to had any relevance to your belief?
Do you really wish to maintain that because you went on to attribute
something from your own imaginings to Elizabot that that alters in any way
the statement that you made before it?
You stated what you believed!... as I did......
Snit wrote..
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex".
Wally wrote..
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
The fact that you now wish to say that the comments that you made about
Elizabot somehow have any effect on your stated belief is fascinating! :-)
> You then admitted I was "supplied" with a definition that was not
> in context and still did not help your case (nobody has suggested that the
> concept of incest would not bring to mind sex,
Where did I admit that you was "supplied" with a definition that was not in
context?
If the definition was of the word you used then it is in context, I doubt
that even I could find a definition of synonymous that would include
erroneous claims made by you about Elizabot! LOL!
> the question was why the
> concept of sex lead Elizabeth to bring up incest).
That may be your question but as can be seen by the quotes of mine that you
have posted that was *never* my "question"!
> In the very same post
> you admit I have stated "Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the
> subject of sex. That has never been in question."
Quite right and that shows your confusion quite nicely as you have always
failed to answer a simple question...
If the concept of incest *would* bring up the subject of sex how then can
incest not be synonymous with sex?
> Here is your post with your admissions: <http://snipurl.com/jzig>. The sad
> thing is even as you admit to the above you *still* flamed and trolled me.
They are your terms...not mine!
> The facts remain the same, no matter what games you play:
Absolutely! and the fact is that my comments address the relevant comment
that you made that show your feelings wrt incest and sex, none of my
comments address the inappropriate assumption that you make wrt Elizabot
which is why I didn't address them!.
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
You still deny that vastly dissimilar things can be considered
synonymous.....amazing!
> In regards to those facts, Wally, it is you who has jumped in to disagree
> and claim "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
I have disagreed with your comment that ...
""Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex""-Snit
By stating that...
""Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex""-Wally
> and many other perverted comments.
I don't consider my comments any more perverted than "Yes, the concept of
incest would bring up the subject of sex." which of course is from you! :)
> Your silly semantic games have back fired on you. Do
> you still hold to the idea that in the context of my statement to Elizabeth
> that you find incest to be synonymous with sex?
Your assertions wrt what Elizabeth thinks are irrelevant wrt what your
beliefs concerning incest and sex are!
Snit I really don't know how to break this to you but it will *always* be
the case that incest will be synonymous with sex, just as it will always be
the case that any discussion about incest will bring up the subject of sex!
--
"For the record: I am torn on the incest question."-Snit
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C053075D.31F6%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/31/06 1:20 AM:
>
>> On 31/3/06 6:14 AM, in article C051A652.4A26C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so. Only
>>> a pervert would claim that incest and sex are close enough to be considered
>>> synonymous.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>> It is possible, hover, that Wally did not understand the context when he
>>> jumped into the conversation.
>>>
>>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>
>> Who could not understand such a simple statement?
>>
>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Please note how you snipped the quote in the middle. Why did you do that?
> Do try to read the quote completely:
>
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"... The
> fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Already explained: the first sentence is you explaining your belief.
The second from "The" is you clearly addressing Elizabeth hence the *you*.
I have only ever commented on your beliefs not your views on someone else's
beliefs!
>
>>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>>> synonymous!"
>>
>> My comments address your simple statement perfectly!
>>
>>> If you are right that Wally did not understand the context of my comments,
>>> however, why do you think he has not admitted to it all this time?
>>
>> You decide after all it is your fantasy! ;=)
>>
>>> Please
>>> note, for what it is worth, that Wally has admitted that the above quote of
>>> mine was what he was referencing,
>>
>> I would have thought that was obvious!
>>
>>> though he dishonestly snips the text after
>>> the ellipses. Why do you think he feels the need to do that?
>>
>> Because your interpretations based on your comprehension problems are simply
>> not relevant, I only wish to deal with what you believe, not what you wish
>> to assume someone else believes!
>
> I am not interested in your excuses, your lies, nor your games. The fact
> remains that the context of the discussion is my comment to Elizabeth:
So you really are saying that ""Incest", for most people, is not synonymous
with "sex"" takes on a different meaning depending on who you are talking
to! You're joking...right?
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"... The
> fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> And in *that* context you have repeatedly stated you find incest to be
> synonymous with sex. Do you *still* hold to that perverted view?
>
Already done!
Wally
<Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
> Wally added:
>
>> His definition is more akin to a synonym rather than synonymous Tim!
>
>
> Wally, both words come, clearly, from the same root. One is a noun, the
> other an adjective, that's all.
Thank you, But I think that I will hang on to the interchangeability factor
that needs to be there for 'synonym' but that need not be there for
'synonymous' for a little while longer yet!
Tim Adams
wrote:
> In article <noone-A5A4FB....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I put it to both of you that "synonymous" means "identical,
> > > inseparable, one-and-the-same-thing.
> >
> > While it can, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that. Look at the example
> > used in this definition:
> >
> > "Hollywood was synonymous with immorality"
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synonymous
> >
> > This infers *all* of Hollywood is immoral.
> >
> > And look at this reference:
> >
> > "Boston is synonymous with marathon"
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=synonymous
> >
> > Is Boston "one-and-the-same-thing" as is a marathon?
> >
>
>
> >
> > I'd say that you need to read definitions for the word synonymous.
>
>
> Tim said much the same:
>
> > Except it doesn't mean "identical"
>
>
>
> Wally added:
>
> > His definition is more akin to a synonym rather than synonymous Tim!
>
>
> Wally, both words come, clearly, from the same root. One is a noun, the
> other an adjective, that's all.
>
>
> Steve and Tim, I was getting ready to apologise and say that you are
> right and I was wrong. Then I looked at Wikipedia
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous>
From your link: "Synonyms (in ancient Greek syn '???' = plus and onoma '?????' =
name) are different words with similar or identical meanings and are
interchangable."
See the word _similar_? It clearly doesn't mean identical to anybody with a
reasonable thought process, other than snit.
If you have MS Word, look up the word _number_. The first synonym is _figure_
Now look up the word _figure_. Tell me where is the word number on the list of
synonyms?
>
> For now, I think I'll stick to my guns and continue to claim that, by
> and large, "synonymous" means, to most people, and in most
> circumstances, "identical (that is, with respect to the meaning of two
> words)"
I see you hedge what your saying with terms like 'by and large', and 'in most
cases'. Those clearly leave room for items to be synonymous without being
identical.
--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
310320061336532205%Bus...@Work.ru on 3/31/06 2:36 AM:
Identical or nearly so...
>
> Wiki: "...many people feel that the synonyms they use are identical in
> meaning for all practical purposes"
Agreed.
>
> I think the examples you plucked, Hollywood, Boston, are metaphorical
> uses. Clearly, Hollywood cannot _literally_ be synonymous with
> immorality even taking your more-liberal definition of the word.
Again, agreed. And this is not the first time they have been told this.
From a previous post:
-----
Side note: While it is true that two words are sometimes said to be
synonymous if they have the same connotation, sex and incest do not have the
same connotations to anyone other than perverts like Wally, Tim Adams, and
Steve Carroll, so they cannot be honestly claimed to be synonymous even in a
connotative or metaphorical way.
-----
And, when they failed to understand *that*, I even started a new thread
entitled "Question for Wally and Steve Carroll" where I asked:
-----
If we accept the metaphorical definition of "synonymous":
To a group of runners, Boston may be said to be "synonymous" with marathons.
To a group of computer users, OS X may be said to be "synonymous" with
quality.
To a group of drinkers, Thunderbird may be said to be "synonymous" with
crap.
To what group would incest be "synonymous" with sex?
-----
The answer, of course, is clear: even in a metaphorical way nobody but a
pervert would consider incest to be synonymous with sex.
> May I be a nerd? since we're talking about the meaning of words, you
> should've used "imply" not "infer." I'm not trying to be a smart-ass,
> I'm smiling as I type, hoping that this conversation is staying on a
> friendly plane.
If Steve, Wally, and their friend Tim Adams are to be "fair", they will
treat you to the same form of name calling that they treat me when I tell
them the truth. They hate it.
> Paul had an interestig comment:
>
>> there are those who think in terms of unilateral synonymity. A may be
>> synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with A... at least, I hope they
>> don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
>
> Paul, I would be grateful for an example. I can't think of how this
> might work.
Not only can I not think of an example, *even if* one were to find such an
example it would almost certainly not apply to the context of this
conversation. The genesis of this is that I told Elizabeth:
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
Please note that in the original context I made it very, very clear I was
using the term "synonymous" to mean "equate", though I have granted that it
could mean equate or nearly so - so close as to not matter, really.
> Snit, your comments were also welcome. Could it be that Steve is upset
> because he sees you playing the man, not the ball?
There is no doubt that Steve and Wally are arguing against me *not* because
of what I said but because of who I said it to (Elizabeth) and the fact that
they both are seeking to get revenge from past debates. This is *more* true
for Carroll who has been following me around trolling and lying literally
for *years* playing such games. He and I started debating a long time ago
when I commented on my view that Bush was guilty of breaking the law in
regards to the war in Iraq. When asked, I posted my argument as to why I
felt this way: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/> (It has been
reworded, the original wording is linked at the bottom).
This view offended Steve. At first he started off trying to be reasonable,
but when he could not convince me of his view he sank to playing all sorts
of semantic games, outright lying, and otherwise being a jerk. He became
worse and worse until he started belittling me for having health problems (I
have a condition called "Polysystemic Dysautonomia" - a form of panic
disorder tied to a faulty autonomic nervous system (and, I believe,
digestive problems). Such attacks are nothing short of personal and
bigoted. Here is an example of Steve's attacks:
and where I point out many of the errors and lies in his attack:
* http://snipurl.com/dqek
* http://snipurl.com/dqen
That likely offers you much, much more insight into out debate than you care
to know. :)
> Michael, you sure had _me_ spinning. I see a coment at Wiki that is
> similar to what you/Putnam say:
>
> "Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same
> meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because
> etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage,
> etc. make them unique."
>
>
> At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a newcomer in this
> group and I don't yet know how tolerant the regs are, of off-topic
> waffle. So now might be a good time for me to shut up.
Not at all. I welcome your input - and that includes when you disagree with
me. I have no problem with people disagreeing; I just prefer honest and
mature disagreement to what is often seen in CSMA.
>
> Thank you, gentlemen and...um...Elizabot if female, for putting up with
> me and my waffle.
No problem - I have enjoyed it.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
Snit
> On 31/3/06 4:00 PM, in article C0522FBD.4A339%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Keep in mind the context, Wally.
>>
>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>>
>> There is no doubt that in context your claims *are* repulsive.
>
> I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them in. I
> have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the context or
> who I am stating them to.
Let me make sure you understand the full implications of your statement,
Wally:
In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of the word
"synonymous":
* The word means the same or nearly so
* If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
Even in this context, Wally, the original context that got this discussion
started, you *still* hold to your view that incest and sex are - to you -
synonymous. Be aware what this implies: you *also* believe sex and incest
are, to you, synonymous, being that this is a logical and unavoidable
deduction based on the definition and the context.
Also keep in mind that you have denied that very implication of your
statement.
Below you just repeat the same games you have been playing for a long, long
time. If you care to know my response just assume it has not changed from
the last time you played the same dishonest games.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore they ARE identical
when presented in that order.
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net on 3/31/06
9:40 AM:
>>> For now, I think I'll stick to my guns and continue to claim that, by
>>> and large, "synonymous" means, to most people, and in most
>>> circumstances, "identical (that is, with respect to the meaning of two
>>> words)"
>>
>> Identical or nearly so...
>
> Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
that?
> Therefore they ARE identical when presented in that order.
LOL! What an amazing brain you have, Tim Adams. At least you do not try to
bury your ignorance in reams of babbling like Wally and Steve Carroll do.
Thanks for the laugh.
Oh, and Tim, before you reply and embarrass yourself more might I suggest
you look up the concept known as the "symmetric property of equality"
<http://snipurl.com/ogy5>.
Note: If you honestly admit to your error I will remove the correction from
my .sig, if not I get to add keep it there as another truth someone in CSMA
(you) has ignorantly tried to argue against.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ If A = B then B = A (known as "symmetric property of equality")
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Note: Still no comment by Snit... and still no proof for his claim.
Note: **STILL** no comment from Snit.
> >>>>>>> The math here stemmed from what you called your "legal" argument
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> Bush's guilt. Here is what you said about the evidence for your
> >>>>>>> argument
> >>>>>>> alleging his guilt:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
> >>>>>>> formal
> >>>>>>> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> >>>>>>> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
> >>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically,
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> logical sense, proof."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: No comment from Snit.
> >>>
> >>> Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
> >
> > Note: *STILL* no comment from Snit.
Note: **STILL** no comment from Snit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are shown not only defining proof for me... but unequivocally
> >>>>>>> stating that your evidence offers NONE... all the while claiming that
> >>>>>>> you have 'strongly supported' your claim. LOL!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: No comment from Snit.
> >>>
> >>> Note: STILL no comment from Snit.
> >
> > Note: *STILL* no comment from Snit.
Note: **STILL** no comment from Snit.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >
> >> Logic stays the
> >> same: <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php>
> >> "So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of
> >> the principles of correct reasoning."
> >
> > Correct reasoning would not label a person as being guilty with
> > absolutely ZERO proof... no matter how much glue you've sniffed.
> >
> >> I will grant that the definition of logic can be debated and the above is
> >> merely a "rough definition". In *any* context, Steve, the first of those
> >> statements is a form of the argument from ignorance. It is, of course,
> >> one
> >> of your favorite logical fallacies to try to push.
> >
> > No, Snit... there is nor 'logical' argument where anyone can
> > unequivocally state that a person *is* guilty where there *is*
> > absolutely NO proof. If this discussion doesn't prove how far gone you
> > are nothing can. Maybe my 12 medicine argument is accurate...
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >
> >> But lets humor you and allow you to limit yourself to the context of the
> >> debate about Bush:
> >
> >
> > Limit myself? Snit, do you not recall it was the Bush argument which
> > spawned your silly bullshit here? Geezus, your brain really is gone...
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>. In regards
> >> to that argument, which is the context in which you made each of those
> >> claims, which do you disagree with?
> >
> > I've stated my position... even more than once in this very thread.
> >
> >>> I have given the answer for the kind of argument you *said* you were
> >>> arguing
> >>> when I made the initial statements. I have again gone over it for you in
> >>> this
> >>> thread as it pertains to that type of argument. I will do it once more...
> >>> just
> >>> for you and your glue tube.
> >>>
> >>>> You can just give a number if that
> >>>> is easier for you:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> >>>
> >>> In an argument that purports guilt a "Lack of proof" (NO proof) leads to
> >>> more that mere " Doubt", it leads to a condition of 100% "Doubt"... at
> >>> least, it *should* lead to such a condition.
> >>
> >> What makes you think logic changed for an argument that purports guilt?
> >
> > What makes you think arguments that purports guilt remain unrefuted when
> > there is an absence of ANY proof whatsoever?
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> What about arguments that do not purport guilt? Do you accept logic there
> >> but not in ones that do? What makes you think logic changes with your
> >> whims?
> >
> > What I really think is you need to cap off the glue tube and put the
> > paper bags away and go get some sleep.
> >
> >>>> 2) Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> >>>
> >>> An instance of 100% "Doubt", which is what would occur in the total
> >>> absence of proof (what you have termed as a "Lack of proof") *should*
> >>> lead to a "Valid Refutation" of the guilt allegation.
> >>
> >> I have never heard anyone rating the *percentage* of their doubt that way,
> >> but if one were to, when one reached 100% or 0% doubt one would not have
> >> doubt but certainty. And certainty, of course, is not doubt. Your silly
> >> semantic games does make doubt become equal to (nor lead to) a valid
> >> refutation!
> >
> > Certainty is not doubt... what a revelation! I really don't know what
> > I'd do without you, Snit <rolls eyes>
> >
> >
> >>>> 3) Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>
> >>> Again, in an argument that purports guilt, a "Lack of proof" (NO proof)
> >>> *should* lead to a "Valid Refutation".
> >>
> >> A lack of proof does *not* equal a valid refutation.
> >
> > You asked me what *my* position is and I have given it to you. If you
> > wish to consider someone guilty when there is a "Lack of proof" (NO
> > proof) that is your business. You flatly told me your evidence offered
> > NO proof for your assertion that Bush is guilty:
Note: No comment from Snit.
> > "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> > series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> > necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> > to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> > logical sense, proof."
> >
> >> To claim otherwise, as
> >> you do, is to support the argument from ignorance:
> >
> > That's your take. I think it's extremely ignorant to claim that a person
> > *is* guilty when there *is* a "Lack of proof" (NO proof).
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> Keep in mind I keep
> >> telling you:
> >>
> >> Incest is a subset of sex
> >> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> >> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
> >>
> >> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
> >>
> >> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> >> comment to Elizabeth:
> >> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> >> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
> >>
> >> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> >> by anyone other than perverts
> >>
> >> And you keep proving you cannot understand those simple comments by
> >> asking:
> >>
> >> So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> >>
> >> Where the hell did you get that from, Steve? Have you considered taking a
> >> simple reading comprehension class?
> >
> > So you are not retracting it?
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >>>>> So, are you
> >>>>> finally retracting your statement that incest is a "sexual activity"
> >>>>
> >>>> I keep telling you:
> >>>
> >>> Answer the question, Snit:
> >>>
> >>> So you *are* retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> >>> Why are you running away from answering it? You either agree or you
> >>> don't. I'm obviously providing you a chance to retract here.
Note: Still no comment from Snit on this issue.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> Are you claiming Tim
> >> Adams claimed sex and sexual activities are the same and I merely agreed
> >> with him? If so, take it up with Tim!
> >
> > You're confused... again... I don't care where you got it. It was *you*
> > that provided it for me when I asked you... this means you were abiding
> > by that definition; where you got it from is unimportant.
Note: No comment from Snit.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >>>> Please note how Wally's views differ from mine. Here is how he
> >>>> responded
> >>>> to
> >>>> my quote to Elizabeth:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> >>>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> >>>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> >>>> synonymous!"
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you agree with me, with Wally, or neither? If neither, what is your
> >>>> view?
> >>>
> >>> You answer my questions and I'll consider answering yours.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > I see no answer to the questions I am asking in this thread.
> >
> >> I answered your questions long ago. Your lies to the contrary do not
> >> change that.
> >
> > You have shown no lies I have told with anything resembling proof on
> > this. Of course, given your penchant for considering people "guilty"
> > with absolutely "no proof", it's easy to see why you keep calling people
> > "liars" while never "actually" providing any proof for it.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >> You, however, will *not* answer my questions. You are that predictable.
> >> You and Wally share the trait of not taking a stand on easy questions. Oh
> >> well.
> >>
> >>> I've only asked about 1000 times...
> >>
> >> And you are made I answered only 500 of those times?
> >
> > ??
> >
> >>> what are you so fucking afraid of?
> >>
> >> And now poor Stevie starts swearing. What makes you think my answering
> >> your
> >> same question only 500 times shows fear?
> >
> > You have yet to answer the questions I've asked in this thread. You're
> > terrified of taking any kind of solid stance regarding these questions.
> > Anyone can see that.
Note: No comment from Snit.
> >>> I've
> >>> answered your math questions... now it's your turn.
> >>
> >> LOL! You waffled and claimed that the "math" depends on the nature of
> >> what
> >> the "math" references.
> >
> > I've answered your questions... you are running from mine.
Note: No comment from Snit that addressed answering my questions that
Snit is running from.
Still nothing to say here, Snit?
Only because you are running from answering some simple questions.
> Feel free to snip the above in your
> inevitable reply (and, if you want, this paragraph).
That's OK... I want this particular record to remain as intact as
possible;)
>
>
> Here are at least some of the facts you are lying about and trying to
> obfuscate:
>
> 1) Your .sig is a lie:
>
> "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
> "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
> like myself" - Snit
>
> You attributed quotes to me that I did not author. Your defense is to
> insinuate that perhaps you merely made an error and did not know you were
> falsely attributing quotes to me, but you have been repeatedly told I did
> not author those quotes.
You are confused. You originally came at me and said I did this
intentionally and claimed I was lying by doing so. I then told you I
would remove the quotes if you could provide proof that I did it
intentionally. You have yet to provide such proof. In the absence of
that proof, I will accept your apology along with your admission that it
was you who lied by claiming I did this intentionally.
> Every time you attribute those quotes to me you
> are lying. I do not care if you were ignorant and not dishonest when you
> first started posting those false statements, you have been clearly and
> knowingly repeating false claims; in other words you have been lying.
You said I lied, Snit... and you've offered nothing resembling proof for
this accusation... only logical fallacy.
> 2) You took material without referencing from someone else's writing - in
> other words you plagiarized
> <http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize>. Only after you were
> caught did you point to the site where you plagiarized your material from.
> Your "defense" is that you plagiarized out of ignorance or error and not
> malice. Being that you have a history of lying and falsely attributing
> people's words (see #1) there is no reason to believe you, but it really
> does not matter. I am not interested in the reasons why you plagiarized; if
> you want to claim you were ignorant of your actions that is fine by me!
>
Well, there really isn't anything you can do about it... up to and
including proving it;)
> 3) In reference to:
>
> -----
> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and
> "Valid Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
>
> A = B
> B = C
> A <> C
> -----
>
> A) Logic does not change from argument to argument, even if you really,
> really want it to. This is true even if the argument has the conclusion
> that someone has broken the law or if you make dishonest accusations of
> recreational drug abuse as you do repeatedly.
Do you agree that you reached your conclusion based on a reading of your
provided evidence which even you admit offers no proof to have reached
such a conclusion? I already know this answer to this question... I am
only asking you to see exactly how far from reality you are straying
TODAY, which is different than yesterday... and the day before that,
where you are concerned.
> B) Doubt is not generally
Not generally? Does this mean you think there are instances where it's
OK to do it?
> measured in percentages, but if it were then 0% or
> 100% "doubt" would cease to be "doubt"; it would instead be "certainty".
> When you jump from the concept of "doubt" to your silly made-up concept of
> "100% doubt" you are jumping topics from doubt to certainty and are being
> dishonest.
LOL! According to your 'logic' and word mincing here, a person should
never make such statements as:
'I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever on this issue.'
or
'There is no doubt in my mind.'
Can you truly not see how silly your position has become? How desperate
you are to be 'right'?
> C) A lack of proof does *not* equal a valid refutation. The idea that it
> does is called an Argument from Ignorance. This is not merely my "take" as
> you dishonestly insinuate, it is a well known logical fallacy - one I have
> given you many links to over time.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with some of the other logical
fallacies contained in such links, Snit. You are engaging in a special
version of what you are claiming for me... it is know as 'Shifting the
burden of proof'.
It begins with:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or
proposition"
You have failed to meet your burden of proof when you admitted that the
evidence you claim "strongly supports" your argument, in fact, contains
NO proof at all. Or better... in your own words:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
See? Not only are you explaining to me the definition of the word proof,
you are seen here clearly admitting your evidence offers none. There is
not "one thing" that "is true" from which "something else necessarily
follows from it" according to you regarding your evidence. Because of
this, that you are attempting to shift your burden of proof onto me by
claiming that I am arguing this particular logical fallacy is quite
ludicrous.
> 4) Your silly games do not honestly refute my argument against Bush:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
Reality is not a game.
> 5) I have never refuted my argument against Bush - and your claims to the
> contrary are lies. Note how you completely fail to offer any link or quote
> of my doing so.
Note how you fail to respond when I quote the relevant material?
You wrote:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
> 6) In reference to the following statements:
>
> Incest is a subset of sex
> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>
> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>
> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
> comment to Elizabeth:
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
> by anyone other than perverts
>
> You have repeatedly and ignorantly asked me:
> So you're retracting your statement that incest is a sexual activity?
> Your question does not follow from these statements and is a clear
> indication of your inability to understand what you read. The answer to
> your question, of course, is clear in the statements above.
>
> Other than the definitions implied in the relationships above I do not
> believe I have offered you any definitions of sex or incest. You keep
> claiming otherwise but can neither quote nor link to any such definition.
LOL! You inferred in this very thread that incest is a sexual activity.
Look, I said I'm willing to let you backtrack on this... (that's how
sure I am in my ability to deal with any argument you wish to make on
this issue). If you'd like, I'll now let you go on record as saying that
incest is not a sexual activity. Are you going to take a stance on this
YET? Are you SO afraid of looking bad in this argument that you refuse
to participate? Trust me, you can't look any worse than you do right now.
> You claim that my statements above are of no interest to you but you keep
> asking me about them. Clearly you are lying.
No, I'm asking you other questions... questions for which it is now more
than obvious you are afraid to answer because you sense some sort of
impending doom. Reality is not all as bad as that... give it a shot,
step up and take a stand. Answer the questions.
> In reference to those statements Wally has stated:
>
> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
> synonymous!"
>
> You are not willing to say if you agree or disagree with his claims, even
> though you have been repeatedly asked.
"Actually", the answer to this question is extremely obvious for those
that can comprehend what they read.
> ----------
>
> You will likely babble on, but the facts above will not change. This is
> true no matter how much you want them to. If you just repeat your same BS
> over do not be surprised if I do not waste my time re-writing the above
> facts and merely copy and paste them.
I already know you will run, Snit... in fact, I'm counting on it;)
--
Snit
>> Steve, your post is long and boring.
>
>
> Only because you are running from answering some simple questions.
Incorrect: your question has been answered repeatedly, including in the post
you responded to.
>
>> Feel free to snip the above in your
>> inevitable reply (and, if you want, this paragraph).
>
> That's OK... I want this particular record to remain as intact as
> possible;)
>
There was nothing of value, so I snipped it. If there is something of value
you want back by all means return it - from what I can tell you are merely
trying to have as much of your babbling as possible to obfuscate the
following truths I speak of.
>>
>> Here are at least some of the facts you are lying about and trying to
>> obfuscate:
>>
>> 1) Your .sig is a lie:
>>
>> "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
>> "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
>> like myself" - Snit
>>
>> You attributed quotes to me that I did not author. Your defense is to
>> insinuate that perhaps you merely made an error and did not know you were
>> falsely attributing quotes to me, but you have been repeatedly told I did
>> not author those quotes.
>
> You are confused. You originally came at me and said I did this
> intentionally and claimed I was lying by doing so. I then told you I
> would remove the quotes if you could provide proof that I did it
> intentionally. You have yet to provide such proof. In the absence of
> that proof, I will accept your apology along with your admission that it
> was you who lied by claiming I did this intentionally.
>
>> Every time you attribute those quotes to me you
>> are lying. I do not care if you were ignorant and not dishonest when you
>> first started posting those false statements, you have been clearly and
>> knowingly repeating false claims; in other words you have been lying.
>
> You said I lied, Snit... and you've offered nothing resembling proof for
> this accusation... only logical fallacy.
Your games, Steve do not change that fact that you are repeatedly and
dishonestly attributing quotes to me I did not author. You are lying.
>> 2) You took material without referencing from someone else's writing - in
>> other words you plagiarized
>> <http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize>. Only after you were
>> caught did you point to the site where you plagiarized your material from.
>> Your "defense" is that you plagiarized out of ignorance or error and not
>> malice. Being that you have a history of lying and falsely attributing
>> people's words (see #1) there is no reason to believe you, but it really
>> does not matter. I am not interested in the reasons why you plagiarized; if
>> you want to claim you were ignorant of your actions that is fine by me!
>
> Well, there really isn't anything you can do about it... up to and
> including proving it;)
You took material without referencing from someone else's writing - the
proof is in this thread. Do you need a link?
>> 3) In reference to:
>>
>> -----
>> Lack of proof = (or must lead to) Doubt
>> Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>
>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and
>> "Valid Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
>>
>> A = B
>> B = C
>> A <> C
>> -----
>>
>> A) Logic does not change from argument to argument, even if you really,
>> really want it to. This is true even if the argument has the conclusion
>> that someone has broken the law or if you make dishonest accusations of
>> recreational drug abuse as you do repeatedly.
>
> Do you agree that you reached your conclusion based on a reading of your
> provided evidence which even you admit offers no proof to have reached
> such a conclusion? I already know this answer to this question... I am
> only asking you to see exactly how far from reality you are straying
> TODAY, which is different than yesterday... and the day before that,
> where you are concerned.
Note: Steve does not comment on the fact that logic does not change from
argument to argument, he merely babbles off topic and makes unsupported
accusations.
>> B) Doubt is not generally
>
> Not generally? Does this mean you think there are instances where it's
> OK to do it?
>
>> measured in percentages, but if it were then 0% or
>> 100% "doubt" would cease to be "doubt"; it would instead be "certainty".
>> When you jump from the concept of "doubt" to your silly made-up concept of
>> "100% doubt" you are jumping topics from doubt to certainty and are being
>> dishonest.
>
> LOL! According to your 'logic' and word mincing here, a person should
> never make such statements as:
>
> 'I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever on this issue.'
>
> or
>
> 'There is no doubt in my mind.'
>
> Can you truly not see how silly your position has become? How desperate
> you are to be 'right'?
Those statements of a lack of doubt do not change the fact that you are
dishonestly jumping from the topic of doubt to the topic of certainty.
Note: Steve does not comment on the fact a lack of proof does not equal a
valid refutation, he merely babbles off topic and makes unsupported
accusations. He claims I have no support for my claims about Bush, but the
support has been posted many times and even, on occasion, referenced by
Steve: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>.
>
>> 4) Your silly games do not honestly refute my argument against Bush:
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
>
> Reality is not a game.
Note: Steve does not comment on the fact that his silly games do not refute
my argument, he merely babbles off topic.
>> 5) I have never refuted my argument against Bush - and your claims to the
>> contrary are lies. Note how you completely fail to offer any link or quote
>> of my doing so.
>
> Note how you fail to respond when I quote the relevant material?
> You wrote:
>
> "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> logical sense, proof."
Note: Steve does not comment on the fact that I have never refuted my
argument - even though he has lied and claimed otherwise. Steve does,
however, quote me clearly stating my argument is strongly supported. Note
how not even Steve denies this.
Note: Steve does not comment on the facts I present, he just babbles and
begs me to do as he does and make false statements that would be
contradictory to my above statements.
>
>> You claim that my statements above are of no interest to you but you keep
>> asking me about them. Clearly you are lying.
>
> No, I'm asking you other questions... questions for which it is now more
> than obvious you are afraid to answer because you sense some sort of
> impending doom. Reality is not all as bad as that... give it a shot,
> step up and take a stand. Answer the questions.
How many times must I tell you "Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual
activities." before you understand that your question about incest being a
sexual activity has been answered!
>
>> In reference to those statements Wally has stated:
>>
>> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>> synonymous!"
>>
>> You are not willing to say if you agree or disagree with his claims, even
>> though you have been repeatedly asked.
>
> "Actually", the answer to this question is extremely obvious for those
> that can comprehend what they read.
Note: Steve *still* has not answered the question.
>
>> ----------
>>
>> You will likely babble on, but the facts above will not change. This is
>> true no matter how much you want them to. If you just repeat your same BS
>> over do not be surprised if I do not waste my time re-writing the above
>> facts and merely copy and paste them.
>
> I already know you will run, Snit... in fact, I'm counting on it;)
And again you are wrong. When I grow too bored with your repeated lying and
do not respond will you claim I am running? Is that your game: spew the
same BS over and over until I do not respond? Please note that *nothing*
you say changes the facts you responded to. If you just babble on and try
to obfuscate those facts I will simply copy and paste them as a response - I
have no desire to go round and round as you tie yourself up in your "pretzel
logic".
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
Steve Carroll
BusyGuy <Bus...@Work.ru> wrote:
As is your prerogative, but I caution you to realize that you are in the
same boat as Snit by doing so, which is... that of admitting not *all*
people limit the concept to what you've claimed here (as even your
provided wikipedia definition acknowledges). Therefore, it is erroneous
to unequivocally state, in an absolute fashion, a statement like this:
"Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous by
anyone other than perverts"
(bullet item #3 from Snit's sig that follows your post here)
I suggest you read the wikipedia (your source for 'synonymous')
definition for the word incest (link below) to see why I say this.
> Wiki: "...many people feel that the synonyms they use are identical in
> meaning for all practical purposes"
Bottom line... even if we stuck to a context for the word synonymous
where the concept of equating two things were the only one involved and
it included acknowledgment of such on the part of every being on the
planet, Snit still has to deal with his past comments.
1 - Snit has relayed that incest *is* (as in - equals) a "sexual
activity".
Even wikipedia defines it as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
2 - Snit has also given up a definition for the word "sex" which defines
it as *being* (as in - equals) "sexual activity"... this, as well as
admonishing me thusly:
"Sexual activities are sex by definition, you moron"
A little history is in order here...
Snit, being a word literal, pedantic... will always be handed back what
he tries to hand to others while projecting his actions onto them. He
can be seen in many threads via google begging for it all to stop, but
he unquestionably enjoys the attention... so we give it to him.
> I think the examples you plucked, Hollywood, Boston, are metaphorical
> uses. Clearly, Hollywood cannot _literally_ be synonymous with
> immorality even taking your more-liberal definition of the word.
>
> May I be a nerd? since we're talking about the meaning of words, you
> should've used "imply" not "infer." I'm not trying to be a smart-ass,
> I'm smiling as I type, hoping that this conversation is staying on a
> friendly plane.
Sure it is friendly.
infer PPronunciation Key(n-fr)
v. inferred, inferring, infers
v. tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive
in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: Socrates argued that a
statue inferred the existence of a sculptor (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
^^^^^
Oh yeah... so Snit doesn't accuse me of plagiarism again:) here's the
link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer
> Paul had an interestig comment:
>
> > there are those who think in terms of unilateral
> > synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous
> > with
> > A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with
> > "incest"!
>
> Paul, I would be grateful for an example. I can't think of how this
> might work.
>
>
> Snit, your comments were also welcome. Could it be that Steve is upset
> because he sees you playing the man, not the ball?
I'm not upset. Considering that Snit's initial comment on this came from
his doing exactly what you just stated, Snit would do well to start
listening to people that keep busting him over this same thing.
> Michael, you sure had _me_ spinning. I see a coment at Wiki that is
> similar to what you/Putnam say:
>
> "Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same
> meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because
> etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage,
> etc. make them unique."
>
>
> At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a newcomer in this
> group and I don't yet know how tolerant the regs are, of off-topic
> waffle. So now might be a good time for me to shut up.
>
> Thank you, gentlemen and...um...Elizabot if female, for putting up with
> me and my waffle.
You're welcome.
--
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C0532618.3205%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/31/06 3:31 AM:
>
>> On 31/3/06 4:00 PM, in article C0522FBD.4A339%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Keep in mind the context, Wally.
>>>
>>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>>
>>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>>> synonymous!"
>>>
>>> There is no doubt that in context your claims *are* repulsive.
>>
>> I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them in. I
>> have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the context or
>> who I am stating them to.
>
> Let me make sure you understand the full implications of your statement,
> Wally:
>
> In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of the word
> "synonymous":
>
> * The word means the same or nearly so
If you had claimed that Incest for you is not synonymous with sex
Then I would have no problem with that, nor with you stipulating which
definition of synonymous you wanted to use!
But you chose to broaden your statement to include "most people" I and those
debating this topic with you would be included in "most people" you do not
get to choose how "most people" define synonymous Snit, in this regard the
definition that I supplied to you is as valid as yours!
> Even in this context, Wally, the original context that got this discussion
> started, you *still* hold to your view that incest and sex are - to you -
> synonymous.
Based on the definition that I supplied to you, of course!
> Be aware what this implies: you *also* believe sex and incest
> are, to you, synonymous, being that this is a logical and unavoidable
> deduction based on the definition and the context.
Absolute nonsense! I have implied nothing of the sort!
> Also keep in mind that you have denied that very implication of your
> statement.
Of course!
> Below you just repeat the same games you have been playing for a long, long
> time. If you care to know my response just assume it has not changed from
> the last time you played the same dishonest games.
>
<Snits sig removed>
>> And before
>> you deny the above is the context, keep in mind your admission
>>
>> Snit wrote..
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex".
>>
>> While you failed to quote the full ellipses point, treated it like a period,
>> and snipped the sentence in half, clearly you were in reference to the same
>> sentence.
>
> Then why did you capitalize 'The' in mid sentence Snit?
Well why did you Snit?
> "Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem."
>
> I treated that as two sentences because that is how I see it, and my
> comments were clearly addressing the first one!
>
> It is obvious that it is your belief wrt incest and sex that my comments
> address, why you would think I was interested in your delusions about
> Elizabot is a mystery to me, are you saying that when you said....
> ""Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"" who you were
> stating it to had any relevance to your belief?
>
> Do you really wish to maintain that because you went on to attribute
> something from your own imaginings to Elizabot that that alters in any way
> the statement that you made before it?
No answer Snit?
> You stated what you believed!... as I did......
>
> Snit wrote..
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex".
>
> Wally wrote..
> "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>
> The fact that you now wish to say that the comments that you made about
> Elizabot somehow have any effect on your stated belief is fascinating! :-)
>
>> You then admitted I was "supplied" with a definition that was not
>> in context and still did not help your case (nobody has suggested that the
>> concept of incest would not bring to mind sex,
>
> Where did I admit that you was "supplied" with a definition that was not in
> context?
Well where did I Snit?
> If the definition was of the word you used then it is in context, I doubt
> that even I could find a definition of synonymous that would include
> erroneous claims made by you about Elizabot! LOL!
>
>> the question was why the
>> concept of sex lead Elizabeth to bring up incest).
>
> That may be your question but as can be seen by the quotes of mine that you
> have posted that was *never* my "question"!
>
>> In the very same post
>> you admit I have stated "Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the
>> subject of sex. That has never been in question."
>
> Quite right and that shows your confusion quite nicely as you have always
> failed to answer a simple question...
>
> If the concept of incest *would* bring up the subject of sex how then can
> incest not be synonymous with sex?
Again no answer Snit?
>> Here is your post with your admissions: <http://snipurl.com/jzig>. The sad
>> thing is even as you admit to the above you *still* flamed and trolled me.
>
> They are your terms...not mine!
>
>> The facts remain the same, no matter what games you play:
>
> Absolutely! and the fact is that my comments address the relevant comment
> that you made that show your feelings wrt incest and sex, none of my
> comments address the inappropriate assumption that you make wrt Elizabot
> which is why I didn't address them!.
>
>> Incest is a subset of sex
>> Sex is a subset of sexual activities
>> Incest is therefore a *subset* of sexual activities.
>>
>> A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole.
>>
>> The context of the use of the word "synonymous" comes from my
>> comment to Elizabeth:
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>> Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
>> by anyone other than perverts
>
> You still deny that vastly dissimilar things can be considered
> synonymous.....amazing!
No comment Snit?
>> In regards to those facts, Wally, it is you who has jumped in to disagree
>> and claim "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>
> I have disagreed with your comment that ...
> ""Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex""-Snit
>
> By stating that...
> ""Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex""-Wally
>
>> and many other perverted comments.
>
> I don't consider my comments any more perverted than "Yes, the concept of
> incest would bring up the subject of sex." which of course is from you! :)
>
>> Your silly semantic games have back fired on you. Do
>> you still hold to the idea that in the context of my statement to Elizabeth
>> that you find incest to be synonymous with sex?
>
> Your assertions wrt what Elizabeth thinks are irrelevant wrt what your
> beliefs concerning incest and sex are!
>
> Snit I really don't know how to break this to you but it will *always* be
> the case that incest will be synonymous with sex, just as it will always be
> the case that any discussion about incest will bring up the subject of sex!
>
Cat got your tongue Snit? ;-)
Snit
> On 31/3/06 11:04 PM, in article C05292F0.4A376%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C0532618.3205%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/31/06 3:31 AM:
>>
>>> On 31/3/06 4:00 PM, in article C0522FBD.4A339%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Keep in mind the context, Wally.
>>>>
>>>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>>>
>>>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>>>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>>>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>>>> synonymous!"
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt that in context your claims *are* repulsive.
>>>
>>> I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them in. I
>>> have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the context or
>>> who I am stating them to.
>>
>> Let me make sure you understand the full implications of your statement,
>> Wally:
>>
>> In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of the word
>> "synonymous":
>>
>> * The word means the same or nearly so
>> * If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
>
> If you had claimed that Incest for you is not synonymous with sex
> Then I would have no problem with that, nor with you stipulating which
> definition of synonymous you wanted to use!
>
> But you chose to broaden your statement to include "most people" I and those
> debating this topic with you would be included in "most people" you do not
> get to choose how "most people" define synonymous Snit, in this regard the
> definition that I supplied to you is as valid as yours!
In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of the word
"synonymous":
* The word means the same or nearly so
* If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
This is not up for debate, Wally. I am *telling* you what my meaning was -
as is clear from the context. I am *not* asking for your opinion, Wally, as
your opinion will *always* fail to alter reality.
>> Even in this context, Wally, the original context that got this discussion
>> started, you *still* hold to your view that incest and sex are - to you -
>> synonymous.
>
> Based on the definition that I supplied to you, of course!
Your off-context (and, frankly, incorrectly used) definition is of no value
in this conversation. Again, keep in mind I am *informing* you (again) of
the original context - I am not looking for your contrary and dishonest
claims.
>> Be aware what this implies: you *also* believe sex and incest
>> are, to you, synonymous, being that this is a logical and unavoidable
>> deduction based on the definition and the context.
>
> Absolute nonsense! I have implied nothing of the sort!
Incorrect: Remember the context:
* The word means the same or nearly so
* If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
When you claim (in this context if no other) one of the concepts is
synonymous with the other there is no escaping the logical conclusion that
you are claiming each is synonymous with the other.
Also keep in mind you have stated:
I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them in.
I have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the
context or who I am stating them to.
Your silly semantic game has collapsed in on itself, Wally.
>
>> Also keep in mind that you have denied that very implication of your
>> statement.
>
> Of course!
Your comments are contradictory and, of course, dishonest.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip things that might tend to confuse certain people)
> If Steve, Wally, and their friend Tim Adams are to be "fair", they will
> treat you to the same form of name calling that they treat me when I tell
> them the truth. They hate it.
Why? He hasn't resorted to the kind of crap you have. By the way...
telling people what they 'feel' again, Snit?
Aside from the differences in opinion over the word synonymous, as I
have shown via a dictionary definition, his interest over the word
"infer" was misplaced. My money says he wasn't the least offended by my
doing so. Of course, your need to peddle this idea as hard and fast as
you can remains intact; apparently, you still think you are fooling
people with this game... but it is, in my opinion, your biggest source
of losing the credibility you are so desperately seeking;)
> > Paul had an interestig comment:
> >
> >> there are those who think in terms of unilateral synonymity. A may be
> >> synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with A... at least, I hope
> >> they
> >> don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
> >
> > Paul, I would be grateful for an example. I can't think of how this
> > might work.
>
> Not only can I not think of an example, *even if* one were to find such an
> example it would almost certainly not apply to the context of this
> conversation. The genesis of this is that I told Elizabeth:
>
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> Please note that in the original context I made it very, very clear I was
> using the term "synonymous" to mean "equate", though I have granted that it
> could mean equate or nearly so - so close as to not matter, really.
Yet, you still have problems with other things you've stated on this
issue... things that you refuse to acknowledge or address in any way.
> > Snit, your comments were also welcome. Could it be that Steve is upset
> > because he sees you playing the man, not the ball?
>
> There is no doubt that Steve and Wally are arguing against me *not* because
> of what I said but because of who I said it to (Elizabeth) and the fact that
> they both are seeking to get revenge from past debates.
There is NO doubt? As in a 100% 'lack of doubt' or "0% doubt"? No doubt
for whom, Snit? By the way, isn't this considered a "certainty" and not
a "doubt" according to you? Aren't you doing what you just accused me of
when you recently wrote:
"I have never heard anyone rating the *percentage* of their doubt that
way, but if one were to, when one reached 100% or 0% doubt one would not
have doubt but certainty. And certainty, of course, is not doubt."
So, you are saying that for *you* there is"no doubt" or "0% doubt", yet,
you are not 'certain' because, as you say, "certainty, of course, is not
doubt."??
Care to explain your obvious hypocrisy here... as well as what the hell
you are talking about? Nevermind... given what you are, I understand
your need to attempt to obfuscate and confuse everything... it's just
hilarious to watch you so quickly trapped in the web of your own obvious
hypocrisy;)
> This is *more* true
So, there are degrees of truth when you are talking about the concept of
truth? Interesting... can they be measured as a percentage?
> for Carroll who has been following me around trolling and lying literally
> for *years* playing such games. He and I started debating a long time ago
> when I commented on my view that Bush was guilty of breaking the law in
> regards to the war in Iraq. When asked, I posted my argument as to why I
> felt this way: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/> (It has been
> reworded, the original wording is linked at the bottom).
It's good to see you admit that the argument does change with respect to
wording. It's also good to see you have changed your previous position
after having had it pointed out that you were making changes when people
complained about your mischaracterizations of their positions... people
also noted changes you made in the wording of the argument back then...
an argument you claim as still not refuted. Of course, an ever changing
argument has a much better shot at retaining such a status, doesn't it;)
What? Did you think something so obvious "actually" escaped everyone's
notice? LOL!
> This view offended Steve. At first he started off trying to be reasonable,
> but when he could not convince me
No one could convince you because you insisted on playing the sole
arbiter of your own argument and you refused to acknowledge any kind of
material that derailed your "argument".
> of his view he sank to playing all sorts
> of semantic games, outright lying, and otherwise being a jerk.
Yeah, I was a real jerk by pointing out what *you* said regarding the
evidence you still claim "strongly supports" your argument:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
Gee, who would do such a thing as I have done here by pointing this out?
<shaking head it total disbelief>
> He became
> worse and worse until he started belittling me for having health problems (I
> have a condition called "Polysystemic Dysautonomia" - a form of panic
> disorder tied to a faulty autonomic nervous system (and, I believe,
> digestive problems). Such attacks are nothing short of personal and
> bigoted. Here is an example of Steve's attacks:
>
> * http://snipurl.com/dqeb
>
> and where I point out many of the errors and lies in his attack:
>
> * http://snipurl.com/dqek
> * http://snipurl.com/dqen
>
> That likely offers you much, much more insight into out debate than you care
> to know. :)
LOL! If he's even read this far into *this* post he's probably had more
than he can stomach.
> > Michael, you sure had _me_ spinning. I see a coment at Wiki that is
> > similar to what you/Putnam say:
> >
> > "Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same
> > meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because
> > etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage,
> > etc. make them unique."
> >
> >
> > At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a newcomer in this
> > group and I don't yet know how tolerant the regs are, of off-topic
> > waffle. So now might be a good time for me to shut up.
>
> Not at all. I welcome your input - and that includes when you disagree with
> me.
Being that you have said as much to a number of people you now regularly
refer to as 'lying trolls' over the issue of disagreement with you, that
remains to be seen.
> I have no problem with people disagreeing; I just prefer honest and
> mature disagreement to what is often seen in CSMA.
> >
> > Thank you, gentlemen and...um...Elizabot if female, for putting up with
> > me and my waffle.
>
> No problem - I have enjoyed it.
--
Snit
Your silly game, Steve does not change the fact that your claim that
Doubt = (or must lead to) Valid Refutation
The fact is that when people talk about "no doubt" they are talking not
about doubt but the absence of it.
>> This is *more* true
>
> So, there are degrees of truth when you are talking about the concept of
> truth? Interesting... can they be measured as a percentage?
>
>> for Carroll who has been following me around trolling and lying literally
>> for *years* playing such games. He and I started debating a long time ago
>> when I commented on my view that Bush was guilty of breaking the law in
>> regards to the war in Iraq. When asked, I posted my argument as to why I
>> felt this way: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/> (It has been
>> reworded, the original wording is linked at the bottom).
>
> It's good to see you admit that the argument does change with respect to
> wording. It's also good to see you have changed your previous position
> after having had it pointed out that you were making changes when people
> complained about your mischaracterizations of their positions... people
> also noted changes you made in the wording of the argument back then...
> an argument you claim as still not refuted. Of course, an ever changing
> argument has a much better shot at retaining such a status, doesn't it;)
> What? Did you think something so obvious "actually" escaped everyone's
> notice? LOL!
I have reworded it to be more clear and to respond to some comments. The
original is linked, unchanged other than to add two words - as noted on the
page. Do you have any example of where the logic of my argument has changed
from one page to the other? Of course you don't!
>> This view offended Steve. At first he started off trying to be reasonable,
>> but when he could not convince me
>
> No one could convince you because you insisted on playing the sole
> arbiter of your own argument and you refused to acknowledge any kind of
> material that derailed your "argument".
You mean, *gasp*, people might disagree! On Usenet! Oh my! LOL! An
interesting exercise, though Steve, would be to see if you can point to any
honest attempt you ever made to actually refute my argument. You will, no
doubt, fail. You had no honest attempt - merely lies, games, and semantic
BS.
>> of his view he sank to playing all sorts
>> of semantic games, outright lying, and otherwise being a jerk.
>
> Yeah, I was a real jerk by pointing out what *you* said regarding the
> evidence you still claim "strongly supports" your argument:
>
> "Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
> series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
> to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
> logical sense, proof."
>
> Gee, who would do such a thing as I have done here by pointing this out?
> <shaking head it total disbelief>
An argument can be strongly supported without being absolutely proved to the
extent of a mathematical proof. In fact, Steve, that is the best one can
hope for in *any* real world debate.
>
>> He became
>> worse and worse until he started belittling me for having health problems (I
>> have a condition called "Polysystemic Dysautonomia" - a form of panic
>> disorder tied to a faulty autonomic nervous system (and, I believe,
>> digestive problems). Such attacks are nothing short of personal and
>> bigoted. Here is an example of Steve's attacks:
>>
>> * http://snipurl.com/dqeb
>>
>> and where I point out many of the errors and lies in his attack:
>>
>> * http://snipurl.com/dqek
>> * http://snipurl.com/dqen
>>
>> That likely offers you much, much more insight into out debate than you care
>> to know. :)
>
> LOL! If he's even read this far into *this* post he's probably had more
> than he can stomach.
Reading your accusations can be nauseating. As I have stated, you try to
obfuscate an busy your BS with so much babbling most people stop reading
your posts.
>
>>> Michael, you sure had _me_ spinning. I see a coment at Wiki that is
>>> similar to what you/Putnam say:
>>>
>>> "Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same
>>> meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because
>>> etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage,
>>> etc. make them unique."
>>>
>>>
>>> At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a newcomer in this
>>> group and I don't yet know how tolerant the regs are, of off-topic
>>> waffle. So now might be a good time for me to shut up.
>>
>> Not at all. I welcome your input - and that includes when you disagree with
>> me.
>
> Being that you have said as much to a number of people you now regularly
> refer to as 'lying trolls' over the issue of disagreement with you, that
> remains to be seen.
Even your input, as dishonest as it is, can be amusing and sometimes even
welcomed. :)
>
>> I have no problem with people disagreeing; I just prefer honest and
>> mature disagreement to what is often seen in CSMA.
>>>
>>> Thank you, gentlemen and...um...Elizabot if female, for putting up with
>>> me and my waffle.
>>
>> No problem - I have enjoyed it.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ Non-powered USB hubs can be used with powered devices
€ Teaching is a "real job"
ed
<snip>
> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so.
no, it does NOT need to be nearly equal to be synonymous; i point you
once again to the merriam-webster example
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/synonymous):
"Boston is synonymous with marathon"
> Only
> a pervert would claim that incest and sex are close enough to be considered
> synonymous.
or those that understand a word can have different meanings...
<snip>
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> stated in post
> 122o91v...@corp.supernews.com on 3/30/06 11:32 AM:
>
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's a case of bilateral synonymity in Snit's case: if A is
> >> synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A. Since "sex" is not
> >> synonymous with "incest", "incest" must not be synonymous with "sex".
> >>
> >> On the other hand, there are those who think in terms of unilateral
> >> synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
> >> A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
> >>
> >
> > It's basically the case where incest -> sex when Wally wrote that incest
> > is synonymous with sex. Snit has decided that Wally was arguing incest =
> > sex. Snit has been arguing this for a year and a half. Don't expect Snit
> > to admit his error and back down now. He's dug himself in too deep.
>
> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so.
Let's try this another way... can you provide a list of what you think
the differences are between incest and sex?
Curieux
> In article <C0528F31.4A372%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "BusyGuy" <Bus...@Work.ru> stated in post
>> 310320061336532205%Bus...@Work.ru on 3/31/06 2:36 AM:
>>> For now, I think I'll stick to my guns and continue to claim that, by
>>> and large, "synonymous" means, to most people, and in most
>>> circumstances, "identical (that is, with respect to the meaning of two
>>> words)"
>> Identical or nearly so...
>
> Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore they ARE identical
> when presented in that order.
Well, sez you?
Just passing through...
"Words are representations." Hang onto that....
But, 'meaning' is....what? For me, 'meaning' is more than a reader may
conclude from the above. "Meaning" is a vital linguistic component - -
A bridge between the word and what the word represents. The "Most
people" rule is risky when it comes to words and representations. Yeah,
the most people rule of words made it tough for slaves. "Most people"
caused big trouble "wih respect to the meaning" of a lot of words.
A dictionary would be slimmer if each words' meaning was limited. ("Same
words" is the challenge of a linguist. A dictionary attempts for account
for the multiple representations by providing possible/potential
"meanings" for 'same words)
Even if synonymous (to most people) means identical "with respect to the
meaning of the two words"? We still have a high hurdle. "Meaning of the
two words"? Just that, problem solved?
See, I imagine most people understand the "meaning" of the word "flying"?
Well, they think they do - - "depending upon....."
If I told most people I was "flying" today? Would you have an image of
me on an airplane or me flapping my wings? What are ya, stupid?
"Flying?" A four year old knows the "meaning" of flying!
"Context"?
Words are not usually used independent of other words.
No one else sees not much help in the following: "identical
'depending' upon he meaning of two words"
I don't play any game if I don't know the rules. I don't play any
linguistic 'game' where someone one writes:
"Word means ________ ."
We have different words for a reason. It's better to have more words
with fewer meanings than be stuck with one word and multiple meanings.
I got lucky - - - I doubt I caused confusion by writing "I was flying."
The 'same word' (me on an aircraft, birds flapping wings) wouldn't have
confused the four year old.
Incest - - - Sex.
Different words, (Word are representations?)
If incest - - - sex. are synonomous, or identical or have the same
meaning?
Which one is excess baggage in a language?
We won't miss one if it's tossed...pick one!
We can get along with "flying" and I'm not confused with a bird (am I?).
I offer that different words or identical words or words which are
synonomous is "with respect to the meaning of two words" - - "If" the
meaning (the rules of this game) is agreed upon. I'll give 'most people'
some weight in the outcome...I don't like mob rule of a language.
Declaring what a word represents should be taken with some consideration.
If not, people might be wrong about me (I can't fly and don't fuck
relatives).
Agreement on context and meaning of a word seem to be a minimal
requirement on the road to finding words which are identical. A person
can't 'make it so'.
If we find we have another word, say one called 'synonomous'? What if it
is necessary to have the word identical "and" the word synonomous (or
incest "&" sex)?
Necessary because "with respect to the meaning of the two words", one
word is not always enough.
Michael
Snit
1143832845.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 3/31/06 12:20 PM:
This has been beaten to death, Ed. Here are some comments from my recent
posts - where I quoted content from an earlier post:
-----
Side note: While it is true that two words are sometimes said to be
synonymous if they have the same connotation, sex and incest do not have the
same connotations to anyone other than perverts like Wally, Tim Adams, and
Steve Carroll, so they cannot be honestly claimed to be synonymous even in a
connotative or metaphorical way.
-----
And, when they failed to understand *that*, I even started a new thread
entitled "Question for Wally and Steve Carroll" where I asked:
-----
If we accept the metaphorical definition of "synonymous":
To a group of runners, Boston may be said to be "synonymous" with marathons.
To a group of computer users, OS X may be said to be "synonymous" with
quality.
To a group of drinkers, Thunderbird may be said to be "synonymous" with
crap.
To what group would incest be "synonymous" with sex?
-----
The answer, of course, is clear: even in a metaphorical way nobody but a
pervert would consider incest to be synonymous with sex.
And if *that* is not clear enough:
In the context of my original usage the following facts are true of the word
"synonymous":
* The word means the same or nearly so
* If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
Even with that being known, Wally has stated about his claim of incest and
sex being synonymous:
I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them
in. I have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the
context or who I am stating them to.
His view that the two concepts mean the same or nearly the same thing is
repulsive.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-B5939C.11...@news.east.earthlink.net on 3/31/06
> 9:40 AM:
>
> >>> For now, I think I'll stick to my guns and continue to claim that, by
> >>> and large, "synonymous" means, to most people, and in most
> >>> circumstances, "identical (that is, with respect to the meaning of two
> >>> words)"
> >>
> >> Identical or nearly so...
> >
> > Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
>
> Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
> that?
Quote? LOL! Is not the entire premise of your argument that of the word
synonymous being used in a context of equating two things you have
contended are *not* equal? Now, here you are, seen agreeing that they
*are* equal. Why am I not surprised. Tell me, will we soon find you
arguing the definition of the word "is" in Clintonian fashion;)
Snit
> In article <C051A652.4A26C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> stated in post
>> 122o91v...@corp.supernews.com on 3/30/06 11:32 AM:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it's a case of bilateral synonymity in Snit's case: if A is
>>>> synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A. Since "sex" is not
>>>> synonymous with "incest", "incest" must not be synonymous with "sex".
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, there are those who think in terms of unilateral
>>>> synonymity. A may be synonymous with B, without B being synonymous with
>>>> A... at least, I hope they don't think "sex" is synonymous with "incest"!
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's basically the case where incest -> sex when Wally wrote that incest
>>> is synonymous with sex. Snit has decided that Wally was arguing incest =
>>> sex. Snit has been arguing this for a year and a half. Don't expect Snit
>>> to admit his error and back down now. He's dug himself in too deep.
>>
>> To be synonymous things need not be completely equal, just nearly so.
>
> Let's try this another way... can you provide a list of what you think
> the differences are between incest and sex?
This is not a sex-ed class, Steve. Suffice it to say that "incest"
necessitates the component of commingling with a relative where "sex" does
not. For a more detailed definition you will need to do your own research -
I am sure Elizabeth would be happy to do the research with you.
Now, Steve, I have answered your question. Given that the context of my
original statement made it clear that:
* The word "synonymous" means the same or nearly so
* If A is synonymous with B, then B is synonymous with A
And given Wally's comments of:
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"
"I stand by my comments no matter what context you choose to put them
in. I have stated my belief that will never change no matter what the
context or who I am stating them to."
Do you agree with Wally's position?