Woodward source pool
Ivor Longhorn
source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
Cheney.
Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Decide for yourself.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
Zero
Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's
> Plame source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money
> here) on Cheney.
mine's on either Bush senior (or junior) AND Cheney (and the rest).
i now also doubt that the real Deep Throat has been "outed" yet.
thanks, Mr. Woodward, for a fuckjob well done.
> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
here's some fascinating questions everyone ought to consider:
15 Questions for Bob Woodward (93 comments)
by Arianna Huffington 11.17.2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/15-questions-for-bob-wood_b_10821.html
> Dr Zen
> Clap your hands say yeah.
> That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
> or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
> Decide for yourself.
wouldn't have it any other way.
-$Zero... When"Playing"ChessWithLyingCheaters...
There'sNoSenseInThinking... SeveralMovesAhead...
The"Game"IsAlreadyOver...
TipOverYourOpponent'sKing... Spit... AndWalkAway...
ThenAlertTheMedia... ToDocumentTheirPerpwalks...
(IfIt'sSweepsWeek... TheyMayJustBite...)
"if treason prospers, none call it treason"
-- some Oliver Stone conspiracy film
(probably quoting Shakespeare or some such)
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zjt-00 -------------------------------
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Re: Woodward source pool
>
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's
>> Plame source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money
>> here) on Cheney.
>
>mine's on either Bush senior (or junior) AND Cheney (and the rest).
>
Don't be stupid. Woodward says *one* SAO. Regardless how many there
*actually* are, it's which one he means.
>i now also doubt that the real Deep Throat has been "outed" yet.
>
>thanks, Mr. Woodward, for a fuckjob well done.
>
>
>> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>
>here's some fascinating questions everyone ought to consider:
>
> 15 Questions for Bob Woodward (93 comments)
>
1. He told Pincus because the plan is to make out it was out there.
Chances are they're going to try to pin it on Woodward. They know he's
got a big mouth and a big ego.
2. He was afraid because he knew the score.
3. Not sure I understand that one. Off the record is off the record.
4. His source called him.
5. It was a lie. The scoop was it was Cheney.
6. He thought that it would blow over. The administration thought they
could shit Fitzy and it would all go away. Some of their shills still
do.
7. Damned good question. This is without question a lie and she's
nailed him.
8. He was doing his part in playing it down. They were going to run
with "so fucking what?" but they switched the play.
9. He was shitting himself. Fitzy played it cool. Woody doesn't know
who he's fucked, but he knows that Fitzy is letting people hang
themselves. Doing Libby for perjury -- for all that the right thinks
it's just a bullshit charge -- will terrify anyone called back to the
grand jury. They know they're fucked: if they lied first time, they
don't know who's screwed them, and if they lie this time, they don't
know what Fitzy knows.
10. That's a good question. You have to reckon Woodward thinks not.
11. He isn't writing shit. It will be dawning on him that his
reputation, what was left of it, just got flushed.
12. Good question. Doesn't really square with being terrified of being
subpoena'd, eh?
13. No. The source is well aware of it.
14. Good question. If he answered it, it would tell us who it was, so
he won't answer it.
15. LOL! I love Arianna.
They are not false if you give them as assumptions, in the context we
were discussing this in.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Decide for yourself.
Towse
> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
> source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
> Cheney.
>
> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
Cheney is too clever to talk with Woodward and spill anything vaguely
resembling beans. "Woodward? You'd trust Woodward?"
Scooter was warned off.
Did you know that Woodward interviewed the Prez =multiple =times for
PLAN OF ATTACK?
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Merle Finch
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>Cheney.
Probably right. Cheney's so freaking arrogant, he thinks he got
crowned king instead of elected vp.
>
>Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
Don't tease me. Please, Mr. F, fry Cheney and try to get Rummy and
Wolfie, too.
Catmandu
"Merle Finch" <me...@wnt.sas.com> wrote in message
news:4torn19bg8l4o8cqd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:27:55 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
> >source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
> >Cheney.
>
> Probably right. Cheney's so freaking arrogant, he thinks he got
> crowned king instead of elected vp.
>
> >
> >Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>
> Don't tease me. Please, Mr. F, fry Cheney and try to get Rummy and
> Wolfie, too.
>
Don't bet on it. This is such an ado about nothing. Truth be known, there
was hardly anyone with any savvy in D.C. who didn't know about Plame's
former CIA connection. It was general talk around the dinner table, and
really no secret at all.
People who didn't know it are embarrassed because it hints that they are out
of the loop.
Fitzy is already starting to swallow air in big gulps.
--Catmandu
Zero
>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's
> >> Plame source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money
> >> here) on Cheney.
> >
> >mine's on either Bush senior (or junior) AND Cheney (and the rest).
>
> Don't be stupid.
easy for you to say.
> Woodward says *one* SAO. Regardless how many there *actually* are,
> it's which one he means.
oh. so we're relying on Woodward's word. cool. that'll work.
> >i now also doubt that the real Deep Throat has been "outed" yet.
> >
> >thanks, Mr. Woodward, for a fuckjob well done.
> >
> >
> >> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
> >
> >here's some fascinating questions everyone ought to consider:
> >
> > 15 Questions for Bob Woodward (93 comments)
>
> 1. He told Pincus because the plan is to make out it was out there.
probably.
> Chances are they're going to try to pin it on Woodward.
i wonder if he saw that coming.
> They know he's got a big mouth and a big ego.
but he does come across pretty humble. not like Bernstein.
> 2. He was afraid because he knew the score.
no doubt.
> 3. Not sure I understand that one. Off the record is off the record.
yeah, but think of the book sales.
> 4. His source called him.
LOL. like, duh.
> 5. It was a lie. The scoop was it was Cheney.
or whomever. like Bush, maybe. read the Larry King transcripts
with Bob Wayward the night before the indictments. funny stuff.
i watched the show that night. Bob was bizarrely on Larry's right
but looked into the camera while answering Larry's questions.
it was kind of surreal.
> 6. He thought that it would blow over. The administration thought
> they could shit Fitzy and it would all go away. Some of their shills
> still do.
well, bullies stay bullies until they're defanged.
> 7. Damned good question. This is without question a lie and she's
> nailed him.
but it's pretty easy to forge those kind of "documents," no?
i imagine the ink will be just about dry by this morning.
> 8. He was doing his part in playing it down. They were going to
> run with "so fucking what?" but they switched the play.
oops.
but they'll be back to that soon enough.
what choice do they have?
> 9. He was shitting himself.
there was a great comment on that huffpo "15 question" post
fleshing out Woodward's state of mind during the proceedings.
search for keyword "big guy" or something like that.
again, very funny stuff.
see also an early comment by someone posting as "Stanely."
very good questions.
> Fitzy played it cool. Woody doesn't know who he's fucked, but he
> knows that Fitzy is letting people hang themselves.
you just gotta hope they all can't keep all their stories straight.
thankfully, it's anawful lot of juggling to cooridinate.
splat goes the errant tomato.
> Doing Libby for perjury -- for all that the right thinks it's
> just a bullshit charge
this presidential term, anyway.
> -- will terrify anyone called back to the grand jury. They
> know they're fucked: if they lied first time, they don't know
> who's screwed them, and if they lie this time, they don't
> know what Fitzy knows.
what a great screenplay in the works, no?
> 10. That's a good question. You have to reckon Woodward thinks not.
darn. i can't suss out what the question was now. i'll have to go
back and look it up again.
> 11. He isn't writing shit. It will be dawning on him that his
> reputation, what was left of it, just got flushed.
i'm still rooting for his integrity, but it looks like a lost cause.
(see my later hopes for a sucker punch below)
> 12. Good question. Doesn't really square with being terrified of
> being subpoena'd, eh?
not at all. your blog post on that issue nailed it very well.
> 13. No. The source is well aware of it.
again, i'll have to go back to remind myself what the question was.
> 14. Good question. If he answered it, it would tell us who it was, so
> he won't answer it.
well, it would narrow down who it wasn't. or was. depending on
whether we really know all the people who were actually "interviewed."
> 15. LOL! I love Arianna.
like you, i found her last question hysterically humorous as well,
but my favorite Arianna bit was that zinger at the end of question #7.
too funny -- it was so cleverly insulting to Woodward's honor
(and manhood).
nothing against a bit of "poetry" between consenting adults, mind you.
i just doubt that Booby would appreciate the insinuation.
...
also, some people, like yourself on your blog, are questioning
whether Woodward can call himself a reporter anymore.
have you ever heard Bob Woodward speak? he's not a reporter,
he's a "ruh...porter."
LOL. i love his voice. it's so methodical, yet sleep-inducing.
he should cut an album. does he do any of his books on tape?
(not that i'd ever buy one now -- unless he's just suckering Bush
for the ultimate punchline):
"Bush outed Plame"
anywaysers, here's a link reminder of what started this tangent:
15 Questions for Bob Woodward
by Arianna Huffington
http://tinyurl.com/acfz2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/15-questions-for-bob-wood_b_10821.html
Zen, you really should go to huffpo and post your 15 answers
( http://tinyurl.com/dud9o ) -- most of them were pretty good.
spread the wealth -- for the sake of those who are too stupid to figure
out the obvious answers for themselves. besides, your wordcraft was
pretty amusing.
[...snip your falling into the Unicornian Logic trap...]
(see my next post on the matter for your intellectual undoing)
in the meantime, eat a peach. <g>
anyway, Woodward has apparently gone from:
FOLLOW THE MONEY
to:
SWALLOW THE HONEY
(koolaid, payola, etc.)
Deep Throat, indeed.
-$Zero... When"Playing"ChessWithLyingCheaters...
There'sNoSenseInThinking... SeveralMovesAhead...
BecauseThe"Game"IsAlreadyOVER...
TipYourOpponents'KingOver... Spit... AndWalkAway...
ThenAlertTheMedia... ToDocumentTheirPerpwalks...
(IfIt'sSweepsWeek... TheyJustMayBite...)
[while suggesting issuing official denials
that the new B-3 bomber is being activated
ahead of schedule, he's told: 'But there is
no B-3 bomber']
"Perfect! Deny it even exists!'"
-- Conrad Brean
[actor: Robert De Niro; from
the movie: "Wag the Dog"]
"Put... that coffee... down.
Coffee is for closers."
-- Blake
[actor: Alec Baldwin; from the movie:
"Glengarry Glen Ross" (1992)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zjt-01 -------------------------------
ing
> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
> source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
> Cheney.
>
> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
Some folks are saying it's Hadley. Who knows. Wapo
says that if somebody discovers who it really is,
they'll confirm. Why don't they just say so now?
Downie must know for sure who it is.
Meantime, I'm kinda with Towse - I don't think
Cheney would be dumb enough to personally let
loose to a reporter. I think he KNEW she was
classified, even if she wasn't covert. He'd let
other folks leak the info.
The part that knocks me for a loop was Woodward,
in that interview with Larry King that I watched,
calling down Fitz as a "junkyard dog prosecutor",
saying the whole investigation would come to
nothing. Even as he said it, Woodward was hiding
the fact that he'd been a part of it from the
get-go. What a hypocrit. The whole thing stinks.
ing
Towse
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-18T193521Z_01_SCH860443_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml>
<http://snipurl.com/k1fq>
Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings
Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:35 PM ET167
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sign he may seek new or revised charges in
the CIA leak case, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said on Friday his
investigation would be going back before a grand jury.
[...]
ing
> ing wrote:
>> The part that knocks me for a loop was Woodward, in that interview
>> with Larry King that I watched, calling down Fitz as a "junkyard dog
>> prosecutor", saying the whole investigation would come to nothing.
>> Even as he said it, Woodward was hiding the fact that he'd been a part
>> of it from the get-go. What a hypocrit. The whole thing stinks.
>
>
> <http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-18T193521Z_01_SCH860443_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml>
>
> <http://snipurl.com/k1fq>
>
> Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings
> Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:35 PM ET167
> By Adam Entous
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sign he may seek new or revised charges in
> the CIA leak case, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said on Friday his
> investigation would be going back before a grand jury.
>
Well, ya-hooo! Did I read that right? RUMMY as a
possible source??! Holy Jeezuz. Thanks Sal! Go Fitz!
ing
Ivor Longhorn
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>> source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>> Cheney.
>>
>> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>
>Cheney is too clever to talk with Woodward and spill anything vaguely
>resembling beans. "Woodward? You'd trust Woodward?"
>
They all thought it would never come out. Cheney's not that clever. He
lets his juice rise sometimes.
>Scooter was warned off.
What do you mean?
>
>Did you know that Woodward interviewed the Prez =multiple =times for
>PLAN OF ATTACK?
Yes, I did. Are you putting your five on the Preznit?
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>
>"Merle Finch" <me...@wnt.sas.com> wrote in message
>news:4torn19bg8l4o8cqd...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:27:55 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>> >source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>> >Cheney.
>>
>> Probably right. Cheney's so freaking arrogant, he thinks he got
>> crowned king instead of elected vp.
>>
>> >
>> >Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>>
>> Don't tease me. Please, Mr. F, fry Cheney and try to get Rummy and
>> Wolfie, too.
>>
>
>Don't bet on it. This is such an ado about nothing. Truth be known, there
>was hardly anyone with any savvy in D.C. who didn't know about Plame's
>former CIA connection. It was general talk around the dinner table, and
>really no secret at all.
>
That's how they're playing it. Woodward said it was casual.
Can you believe that he's fallen so far that now he's *part* of the
coverup?
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:27:55 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>>source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>>Cheney.
>
>Probably right. Cheney's so freaking arrogant, he thinks he got
>crowned king instead of elected vp.
>
>>
>>Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>
>Don't tease me. Please, Mr. F, fry Cheney and try to get Rummy and
>Wolfie, too.
>
Wolfowitz, no. Rummy, maybe not. But Rice, Powell, yes. They're
involved too.
Everyone knows who's involved. It's only a question of who Fitzy can
put in the frame.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>> >Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's
>> >> Plame source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money
>> >> here) on Cheney.
>> >
>> >mine's on either Bush senior (or junior) AND Cheney (and the rest).
>>
>> Don't be stupid.
>
>easy for you to say.
>
>
>> Woodward says *one* SAO. Regardless how many there *actually* are,
>> it's which one he means.
>
>oh. so we're relying on Woodward's word. cool. that'll work.
>
No. We're discussing who his source is.
>
>> >i now also doubt that the real Deep Throat has been "outed" yet.
>> >
>> >thanks, Mr. Woodward, for a fuckjob well done.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>> >
>> >here's some fascinating questions everyone ought to consider:
>> >
>> > 15 Questions for Bob Woodward (93 comments)
>>
>> 1. He told Pincus because the plan is to make out it was out there.
>
>probably.
>
>> Chances are they're going to try to pin it on Woodward.
>
>i wonder if he saw that coming.
Well, I see that Geno is already pushing the "it was just gossip"
line, so maybe he did. Maybe he's well aware of his part in the
coverup.
>
>> They know he's got a big mouth and a big ego.
>
>but he does come across pretty humble. not like Bernstein.
Bernstein doesn't have his tongue up Bush's arse.
>
>
>> 2. He was afraid because he knew the score.
>
>no doubt.
>
>> 3. Not sure I understand that one. Off the record is off the record.
>
>yeah, but think of the book sales.
>
>> 4. His source called him.
>
>LOL. like, duh.
>
>> 5. It was a lie. The scoop was it was Cheney.
>
>or whomever. like Bush, maybe. read the Larry King transcripts
>with Bob Wayward the night before the indictments. funny stuff.
I know, I've read them. Demented.
>
>i watched the show that night. Bob was bizarrely on Larry's right
>but looked into the camera while answering Larry's questions.
>it was kind of surreal.
>
>> 6. He thought that it would blow over. The administration thought
>> they could shit Fitzy and it would all go away. Some of their shills
>> still do.
>
>well, bullies stay bullies until they're defanged.
>
>
>> 7. Damned good question. This is without question a lie and she's
>> nailed him.
>
>but it's pretty easy to forge those kind of "documents," no?
Yes.
>
>i imagine the ink will be just about dry by this morning.
Yes, sure enough.
>
>> 8. He was doing his part in playing it down. They were going to
>> run with "so fucking what?" but they switched the play.
>
>oops.
>
>but they'll be back to that soon enough.
No, because Fitzy has pulled the plug on "so fucking what?". He's made
it "you get thirty years for perjury is fucking what". Actually, they
all know it's like musical chairs. When the music stops, someone is
getting indicted for breach of the Espionage Act.
>what choice do they have?
>
Tell the truth, rat out someone else, preferably higher up the food
chain and do a deal.
It's what the mafia guys did when he had them in the vice.
>
>> 9. He was shitting himself.
>
>there was a great comment on that huffpo "15 question" post
>fleshing out Woodward's state of mind during the proceedings.
>search for keyword "big guy" or something like that.
>
>again, very funny stuff.
>
>see also an early comment by someone posting as "Stanely."
>
>very good questions.
>
>> Fitzy played it cool. Woody doesn't know who he's fucked, but he
>> knows that Fitzy is letting people hang themselves.
>
>you just gotta hope they all can't keep all their stories straight.
They can't. Scooter's already hung himself.
The thing is, the rightists are all going, ah, you know, it was just
gossip, everyone knew, but, erm, how did it become gossip?
>
>thankfully, it's anawful lot of juggling to cooridinate.
>
>splat goes the errant tomato.
>
>> Doing Libby for perjury -- for all that the right thinks it's
>> just a bullshit charge
>
>this presidential term, anyway.
No, they want it done. They don't want it to drag through the
midterms. It's Scooter who will drag it out.
>
>> -- will terrify anyone called back to the grand jury. They
>> know they're fucked: if they lied first time, they don't know
>> who's screwed them, and if they lie this time, they don't
>> know what Fitzy knows.
>
>what a great screenplay in the works, no?
I'm not sure. It's a bit stagey. All dark rooms and people talk talk
talking.
>
>
>> 10. That's a good question. You have to reckon Woodward thinks not.
>
>darn. i can't suss out what the question was now. i'll have to go
>back and look it up again.
>
>
>> 11. He isn't writing shit. It will be dawning on him that his
>> reputation, what was left of it, just got flushed.
>
>i'm still rooting for his integrity, but it looks like a lost cause.
>(see my later hopes for a sucker punch below)
No, he doesn't have any integrity. He sold it for a lot of dosh.
>
>
>> 12. Good question. Doesn't really square with being terrified of
>> being subpoena'd, eh?
>
>not at all. your blog post on that issue nailed it very well.
>
>
>> 13. No. The source is well aware of it.
>
>again, i'll have to go back to remind myself what the question was.
>
>
>> 14. Good question. If he answered it, it would tell us who it was, so
>> he won't answer it.
>
>well, it would narrow down who it wasn't. or was. depending on
>whether we really know all the people who were actually "interviewed."
He's too vain not to mention everyone he interviewed.
>
>
>> 15. LOL! I love Arianna.
>
>like you, i found her last question hysterically humorous as well,
>but my favorite Arianna bit was that zinger at the end of question #7.
>
>too funny -- it was so cleverly insulting to Woodward's honor
>(and manhood).
Yes. I think everyone liked that. Particularly because it's been
suggested that Miller and Libby had a closer relationship than
journo-source.
>
>nothing against a bit of "poetry" between consenting adults, mind you.
>
>i just doubt that Booby would appreciate the insinuation.
>
Quite.
>...
>
>also, some people, like yourself on your blog, are questioning
>whether Woodward can call himself a reporter anymore.
>
>have you ever heard Bob Woodward speak? he's not a reporter,
>he's a "ruh...porter."
>
>LOL. i love his voice. it's so methodical, yet sleep-inducing.
>
>he should cut an album. does he do any of his books on tape?
>(not that i'd ever buy one now -- unless he's just suckering Bush
>for the ultimate punchline):
>
> "Bush outed Plame"
My fiver says Bush didn't.
>anywaysers, here's a link reminder of what started this tangent:
>
> 15 Questions for Bob Woodward
> by Arianna Huffington
> http://tinyurl.com/acfz2
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/15-questions-for-bob-wood_b_10821.html
>
>Zen, you really should go to huffpo and post your 15 answers
>( http://tinyurl.com/dud9o ) -- most of them were pretty good.
>
>spread the wealth -- for the sake of those who are too stupid to figure
>out the obvious answers for themselves. besides, your wordcraft was
>pretty amusing.
>
>
>[...snip your falling into the Unicornian Logic trap...]
>
>(see my next post on the matter for your intellectual undoing)
>
>in the meantime, eat a peach. <g>
If I can wrest it from the squirrels.
>
>anyway, Woodward has apparently gone from:
>
> FOLLOW THE MONEY
>
>to:
>
> SWALLOW THE HONEY
>
> (koolaid, payola, etc.)
>
>
>Deep Throat, indeed.
>
I read somewhere that there are no more Deep Throats, just a load of
cocksuckers.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>> source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>> Cheney.
>>
>> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>
>Some folks are saying it's Hadley. Who knows. Wapo
>says that if somebody discovers who it really is,
>they'll confirm. Why don't they just say so now?
>Downie must know for sure who it is.
>
He does, but he can't say.
>Meantime, I'm kinda with Towse - I don't think
>Cheney would be dumb enough to personally let
>loose to a reporter.
He didn't. He told Bob Woodward.
> I think he KNEW she was
>classified, even if she wasn't covert. He'd let
>other folks leak the info.
>
He knew for sure that she was covert.
Of course he let other folks leak it. They sat down and he said,
right, we're fucking Wilson. Get your contacts books out and pick a
name.
>The part that knocks me for a loop was Woodward,
>in that interview with Larry King that I watched,
>calling down Fitz as a "junkyard dog prosecutor",
>saying the whole investigation would come to
>nothing. Even as he said it, Woodward was hiding
>the fact that he'd been a part of it from the
>get-go. What a hypocrit. The whole thing stinks.
Woodward is fucked. About time some of the sycophantic shitheads in
Washington got fucked.
About time "protecting a source" was about protecting whistleblowers
and not a way for the administration to leak shit without having to
say who's doing the leaking.
Ivor Longhorn
He's not telling us anything we don't know. This announcement is to
shake the tree, I think.
Ejucaided Redneck
> About time "protecting a source" was about protecting whistleblowers
> and not a way for the administration to leak shit without having to
> say who's doing the leaking.
Hear hear.
--
Some day you will move me almost to the verge of
irritation by your chuckle-headed Goddamned fashion
of shutting your Goddamned gas off without giving any
notice to your Goddamned parishioners. Several times you
have come within an ace of smothering half of this household
in their beds and blowing up the other half by this idiotic,
not to say criminal, custom of yours. And it has happened
again today. Haven't you a telephone?
--Mark Twain, letter to the Hartford Gas
& Electric Company, 1886
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
Chapter 1 of "Home Call: A Novel of Kentucky"
3 Stories from "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
& two new stories
And new photos
Latest Herald-Leader Column:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/12318071.htm
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Bob (this one)
<LOL> A geriatric, snake-oil salesman cum weight-lifter in Texas has the
real scoop on matters inside the beltway.
Just like in real life. Or should I say "Rush" life.
Bwah...
Pastorio
Towse
> Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Towse <se...@towse.com> said:
>
>>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>>>source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>>>Cheney.
>>>
>>>Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>>
>>Cheney is too clever to talk with Woodward and spill anything vaguely
>>resembling beans. "Woodward? You'd trust Woodward?"
>
> They all thought it would never come out. Cheney's not that clever. He
> lets his juice rise sometimes.
But Woodward?
>>Scooter was warned off.
>
> What do you mean?
He was probably specifically told not to talk about Plame with Woodward.
If you were hatching this plot, wouldn't you divvy up who spills the
beans with whom? You wouldn't want four different people telling the
same reporter about Plame. The reporter might think there was something
smoky going on.
>>Did you know that Woodward interviewed the Prez =multiple =times for
>>PLAN OF ATTACK?
>
> Yes, I did. Are you putting your five on the Preznit?
I don't think Woodward interviewed the Prez one-on-one. I think there
was one or more others in the room listening in and, no, I am not
putting five on the Preznit. He above all others would not have peeped.
I just thought it was interesting how the muckraker of yesteryear got so
cozy with the White House for his latest book.
Ivor Longhorn
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Towse <se...@towse.com> said:
>>
>>>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>>>>source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>>>>Cheney.
>>>>
>>>>Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>>>
>>>Cheney is too clever to talk with Woodward and spill anything vaguely
>>>resembling beans. "Woodward? You'd trust Woodward?"
>>
>> They all thought it would never come out. Cheney's not that clever. He
>> lets his juice rise sometimes.
>
>But Woodward?
>
Woodward is perfect. He's never going to reveal his source. He's a
staunch backer of the principle that you don't say who the anonymous
shitslinger is. But he's got a big mouth and he's on the end of their
strings. Perfect for the purpose.
>>>Scooter was warned off.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
>He was probably specifically told not to talk about Plame with Woodward.
Yes. I think they each had their own people to talk to.
>If you were hatching this plot, wouldn't you divvy up who spills the
>beans with whom?
Yes, I think that's what they did. I think the very fact that they
didn't "gossip" like that blows the "casual" thing out of the water.
If Libby really had heard it from a journo, why wouldn't he ask other
journos "have you heard?" But he didn't. That's not what the journos
say.
>You wouldn't want four different people telling the
>same reporter about Plame. The reporter might think there was something
>smoky going on.
The reporter might think it was just common knowledge. As it's
supposed by Woodward to have been.
>
>>>Did you know that Woodward interviewed the Prez =multiple =times for
>>>PLAN OF ATTACK?
>>
>> Yes, I did. Are you putting your five on the Preznit?
>
>I don't think Woodward interviewed the Prez one-on-one. I think there
>was one or more others in the room listening in and, no, I am not
>putting five on the Preznit. He above all others would not have peeped.
>I just thought it was interesting how the muckraker of yesteryear got so
>cozy with the White House for his latest book.
He's been seduced by power. It happens.
Zero
Dissonance/y?
(was: Re: Woodward source pool)
In http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/95f8eb771a68ce3a
Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
[...]
> >[...snip your falling into the Unicornian Logic trap...]
> >
> >(see my next post on the matter for your intellectual undoing)
> >
> >in the meantime, eat a peach. <g>
>
> If I can wrest it from the squirrels.
heh. good one.
and don't forget about all those Martians you're stealing from.
whoa. talk about getting robbed, huh?
what a cruel brute you are.
"Capitalism is theft, you idiot. Any system in which a
person exploits labour he does not himself perform is
theft by definition."
wanna bet?
"The labourer has no share in the means of production,
so is obliged to work to furnish himself with the means
of sustenance."
yikes. perhaps we can wager some stock options?
"The squirrel can only be described
as a thief if he fights for the nest."
-- Zen
(on Capitalism, theft, intellectual property, etc.)
Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors
http://tinyurl.com/cb49q
obligatory reminder:
=============================================================
Zen, then moi:
>>>>>Property is without question theft.
>>>>
>>>>theft from who? (whom?)
>>>
>>>Everyone else who does not have the property in question.
>>
>>so if i eat a peach, i'm stealing from the squirrels in China?
>
>In principle.
so, in principle, EVERYONE is a Capitalist. and EVERYONE is a thief.
that about cover it?
>>and the Martians? and those folks in the Orion belt?
>
>Possibly.
possibly? um... nope. you've given them a full stake whether
they exist or not. (whether you know of their existence or not).
> >try again.
>
> You're going to need to show how a peach is "property" in
> any real sense.
well, eat one. that should settle the question quite nicely.
================= http://tinyurl.com/cb49q ===================
but we'll get back to your "property is theft" delusions after
i grind you thru your totally illogical Classical Logic nonsense
below.
[...]
> >> Decide for yourself.
> >
> >wouldn't have it any other way.
[...]
> >------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? -------------------
> >
> >
> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> > AND 3 > 2
> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >
> >
> >---------------------------- FREE CLUE ----------------------------
> >
> >
> > Don't bother making the false assumption
> > that the given assumptions are false.
>
> They are not false if you give them as assumptions, in the context we
> were discussing this in.
ok.
so what's your answer to the Unicornian Math/Logic question?
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
be sure to show your work, because even a monkey has a 25% chance
of picking the right answer.
and a squirrel has even less chance than that. peach or no peach.
remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
you have to show the logic behind all the given mathematical
relationships, otherwise you might as well choose:
[c] Unable to Determine.
and be done with it.
and then fork over my $29, of course.
> Dr Zen
> Clap your hands say yeah.
[CLAP CLAP!]
"Yeah!"
[CLAP CLAP CLAP!]
"Yeah... Yeah... Yeah..."
[CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!]
"Yesssssss!!!"
2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
> That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
Ted Nugent? KISS?
> or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Boonesfarm or Malt Duck?
> Decide for yourself.
anxiously awaiting your "too bored to answer" bit.
ya gotta start selling ad space, man.
ironically enough [FOUITN], it boosts readership.
just don't kiss the butts of your advertisers and you'll be fine.
-$Zero... SoonToBeRenamed... $TwentyNine...
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-00 -------------------------------
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >> >Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's
> >> >> Plame source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money
> >> >> here) on Cheney.
> >> >
> >> >mine's on either Bush senior (or junior) AND Cheney (and the rest).
> >>
> >> Don't be stupid.
> >
> >easy for you to say.
> >
> >
> >> Woodward says *one* SAO. Regardless how many there *actually* are,
> >> it's which one he means.
> >
> >oh. so we're relying on Woodward's word. cool. that'll work.
>
> No. We're discussing who his source is.
"it's which one he means" & "who his source is"
um... not necessarily the same thing, are they?
so we're relying on Woodward's word.
> >> >i now also doubt that the real Deep Throat has been "outed" yet.
> >> >thanks, Mr. Woodward, for a fuckjob well done.
> >> >
> >> >> Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
> >> >
> >> >here's some fascinating questions everyone ought to consider:
> >> >
> >> > 15 Questions for Bob Woodward (93 comments)
> >>
> >> 1. He told Pincus because the plan is to make out it was out there.
> >
> >probably.
> >
> >> Chances are they're going to try to pin it on Woodward.
> >
> >i wonder if he saw that coming.
>
> Well, I see that Geno is already pushing the "it was just gossip"
> line, so maybe he did. Maybe he's well aware of his part in the
> coverup.
if i were him, i wouldn't trust those guys.
> >> They know he's got a big mouth and a big ego.
> >
> >but he does come across pretty humble. not like Bernstein.
>
> Bernstein doesn't have his tongue up Bush's arse.
brilliant.
so that's why Bernstein isn't afraid of getting a subpoena
and can continue to laugh so easily. he's not a butt kisser.
well, not on the level that Booby is. he's still a free man.
he can hold his cocky head up high.
> >> 2. He was afraid because he knew the score.
> >
> >no doubt.
> >
> >> 3. Not sure I understand that one.
> >> Off the record is off the record.
> >
> >yeah, but think of the book sales.
> >
> >> 4. His source called him.
> >
> >LOL. like, duh.
i read that Bob's claiming otherwise.
> >> 5. It was a lie. The scoop was it was Cheney.
> >
> >or whomever. like Bush, maybe. read the Larry King transcripts
> >with Bob Wayward the night before the indictments. funny stuff.
>
> I know, I've read them. Demented.
Wayward's doing Larry King on Monday. break out the popcorn.
i'm gonna be taping it. i sure hope that it's broadcast live,
and that Larry does due diligence. too bad Wayward didn't give
the interview on the night that the news broke of his non-firecracker,
huh? i guess he was too busy preparing to be "off the cuff" innit.
> >i watched the show that night. Bob was bizarrely on Larry's right
> >but looked into the camera while answering Larry's questions.
> >it was kind of surreal.
> >
> >> 6. He thought that it would blow over. The administration
> >> thought they could shit Fitzy and it would all go away.
> >> Some of their shills still do.
> >
> >well, bullies stay bullies until they're defanged.
> >
> >
> >> 7. Damned good question. This is without question a lie and
> >> she's nailed him.
> >
> >but it's pretty easy to forge those kind of "documents," no?
>
> Yes.
time to get out the electrodes, huh?
> >i imagine the ink will be just about dry by this morning.
>
> Yes, sure enough.
unless they thought that far ahead. they're pretty sneaky.
> >> 8. He was doing his part in playing it down. They were going
> >> to run with "so fucking what?" but they switched the play.
> >
> >oops.
> >
> >but they'll be back to that soon enough.
>
> No, because Fitzy has pulled the plug on "so fucking what?".
think "pardon".
> He's made it "you get thirty years for perjury is fucking what".
it would have carried more weight if he had arrested and jailed
Scooter until the trial (at least make him post some serious bail).
people who steal a loaf of bread get fingerprinted, FFS.
Scooter's facing 30 years and they don't even cuff the scoundrel.
a charge of obstructing justice on THAT level deserves at least
a little manhandling while they place him in the squad car.
(even if it's just thoughtfully grasping his head so it won't hit
the car roof as he's gently guided into the backseat, cuffed).
> Actually, they all know it's like musical chairs. When the music
> stops, someone is getting indicted for breach of the Espionage Act.
let's pray that Fitzgerald is as honorable as he seems.
it's hard to forget who nominated him for the job.
> >what choice do they have?
>
> Tell the truth,
LOL
> rat out someone else, preferably higher up the food chain
> and do a deal.
is there a witness protection program for people squealing
on corruption in the witness protection program? yikes.
> It's what the mafia guys did when he had them in the vice.
apples and oranges. sorta.
no wonder Wayward was terrified of testifying.
Gawd. what a world.
> >> 9. He was shitting himself.
> >
> >there was a great comment on that huffpo "15 question" post
> >fleshing out Woodward's state of mind during the proceedings.
> >search for keyword "big guy" or something like that.
"I have a couple of questions for Bob, too. How'd it feel testifying
before Fitzgerald after you called him a junkyard dog? How'd it feel,
after you said his work was a waste of time and would amount to
nothing? Huh, big guy? How'd that feel? Did you tell him you're sorry?
If so, was it before or after you took the oath? Did you cry during
your deposition? If so, did Fitzgerald give a damn? Do you have a
security clearance or did George Bush leak classified information for
hours in your majestic presence?
You were an American hero -- a beacon of truth and hope -- now you're
just the next guy who sold his soul for Bush. You're a bowling pin,
Bob. Get it?"
-- Posted by: bluegirlredstate on November 17, 2005 at 10:27pm
> >again, very funny stuff.
> >
> >see also an early comment by someone posting as "Stanely."
sorry. typo. "Stanley"
> >very good questions.
=============== Posted by: stanley on November 17, 2005 at 04:10pm
How would you know Fitzgerald's investigation was "nothing" Bob? Do you
claim to know everything and hide a lie detector in your lunch bag?
Scooter clearly lied to a grand jury, that is a story in itself without
the bigger conspiracy of lying to go to war. Fitzgerald didn't chase
this job, but was mandated by everyone including George W to find out
the truth. Scooter's boss says he wants the truth and Scooter lies when
searching for it. How in the world is that "nothing" Bob?
[...]
Scooter could have said "sure I said this and that, everyone knew about
this" But, the fact is he didn't and is now indicted for knowingly
committing a crime in the process. Scooter knew what he was doing, he
is a trained lawyer and by all accounts a bright guy. After the fact,
we can all see that Fitzgeral DIDN'T make a "big mistake" as Bob has
said for going after Judy. Fitzgerald smelled a lie and carefully
ensnared the liar. He isn't saying that Scooter committed the crime of
outing a CIA agent, and Bob is now admitting that there are others who
may have been involved in that crime besides Scooter. That also is not
"nothing" is it Bob?
Bob presumes to know that Valerie Plame's identity was a widely spread
rumor, therefore not a real crime. But the crime is spreading the rumor
isn't it Bob?
If she was covert, then why did Bob know about it? How is that
"nothing" during a time of war brought on by bad information Bob?
How do you know "there is not the kind of compelling evidence that
there was some kind of crime" Bob?
Lying to a grand jury is a crime, isn't it Bob? Fitzgerald had
compelling evidence to this fact from the very begining, from Scooter's
own notes and seven individual testimonies to that effect. Are you
suggesting that Fitzgerald should have ignored this Bob?
How can Fitzgerald assume there was no crime to prosecute if his
witnesses are lying to him Bob?
If there "was no crime" as you have said, without a clear reason for
Scooter to lie, wouldn't it be normal for the "junkyard dog" to assume
that others questioned might be lying for reasons to be revealed Bob?
Why would a lawyer like Scooter risk jail and ruin his career Bob?
[...]
Bob, seems to propose that Scooter was just a chearleader of bad
information or participant of a widespread rumor about the well-known
identity of Wilson's wife, who incidentally is a part of the team who
supposedly gave us all this bad information. Isn't this bizarre
coincidence more than "Nothing" Bob?
Valerie Plame was part of an undercover operation that still was
operating at the time it was publcly outed. Uncovering her is the same
as uncovering that entire team. Isn't that a crime especially during
war Bob?
Are you suggesting that a complete failure of our intelligence service
and the subsequent urgency of the Administration to embrace it as fact
is really "Nothing" Bob?
How can those blaming bad information for their bad judgement and who
then undermine the ability to get good information by revealing covert
operations be "Nothing" Bob?
[...]
=============== Posted by: stanley on November 17, 2005 at 04:10pm
> >> Fitzy played it cool. Woody doesn't know who he's fucked,
> >> but he knows that Fitzy is letting people hang themselves.
> >
> >you just gotta hope they all can't keep all their stories straight.
>
> They can't. Scooter's already hung himself.
voluntarily. pardon-shopper that he is.
> The thing is, the rightists are all going, ah, you know, it was just
> gossip, everyone knew, but, erm, how did it become gossip?
besides, AFTER the fact, it's absolute child's play to pretend that
some classified information (like Valerie Plame's intelligence status)
was not maliciously leaked but was "common knowledge" or "Washington
chit chat".
all it takes is a bunch of liars to claim so retroactively.
even if all or most of those liars happen to be "ruh...porters".
duh. and double duh.
being an optimist, i'm still holding out hope for Woodward's integrity
-- gleefully envisioning him delivering the ultimate sucker punch to
Bush and Cheney (and all the rest of their lying chickenhawk ilk) with
Wayward having been laying in the weeds all these years like a good
little poker player -- but i have faith that the sucker punch will
happen anyway (despite Booby Wayward's actual intent).
why? because bad karma NEVER turns out well.
breaking the law is one thing. we're all sinners. but getting
thousands and thousands brutally killed over your boundless greed
and/or foolish pride is quite another.
> >thankfully, it's anawful lot of juggling to cooridinate.
> >
> >splat goes the errant tomato.
and then another. and another. and another.
pretty soon you have enough to make a huge pot of sauce.
> >> Doing Libby for perjury -- for all that the right thinks it's
> >> just a bullshit charge
> >
> >this presidential term, anyway.
>
> No, they want it done. They don't want it to drag through the
> midterms. It's Scooter who will drag it out.
i meant in comparison to the Clinton presidential term. they sure
didn't think perjury was bullshit during Ken Starr's "investigations"
over a bit of handsfree cocksucking.
> >> -- will terrify anyone called back to the grand jury. They
> >> know they're fucked: if they lied first time, they don't know
> >> who's screwed them, and if they lie this time, they don't
> >> know what Fitzy knows.
> >
> >what a great screenplay in the works, no?
>
> I'm not sure. It's a bit stagey. All dark rooms and people talk
> talk talking.
i'd love to score the music. a slow steady beat in the background
accelerating through-out the film into a crazed crescendo.
> >> 10. That's a good question. You have to reckon Woodward thinks not.
> >
> >darn. i can't suss out what the question was now.
> >i'll have to go back and look it up again.
"10. Did the prosecutor indicate that you might be called back?"
Gawd. it certainly had to cross Booby's mind as implied, no?
> >> 11. He isn't writing shit. It will be dawning on him that his
> >> reputation, what was left of it, just got flushed.
> >
> >i'm still rooting for his integrity, but it looks like a lost cause.
> >(see my later hopes for a sucker punch below)
>
> No, he doesn't have any integrity. He sold it for a lot of dosh.
there's always redemption available. even for Geno. and Bush.
you think Wayward is as foolishly proud as those twerps?
> >> 12. Good question. Doesn't really square with being terrified
> >> of being subpoena'd, eh?
> >
> >not at all. your blog post on that issue nailed it very well.
"12. You've praised Judith Miller's decision to go to jail and offered
to do time for her. Still feel that way?"
> >> 13. No. The source is well aware of it.
> >
> >again, i'll have to go back to remind myself what the question was.
"13. Did you remind your source of the June 2003 conversation and did
that prompt him or her to go to Fitzgerald?"
oh.
> >> 14. Good question. If he answered it, it would tell us who it was,
> >> so he won't answer it.
> >
> >well, it would narrow down who it wasn't. or was. depending on
> >whether we really know all the people who were actually "interviewed."
>
> He's too vain not to mention everyone he interviewed.
i meant Fitzgerald's interviews, not Wayward's.
> >> 15. LOL! I love Arianna.
> >
> >like you, i found her last question hysterically humorous as well,
> >but my favorite Arianna bit was that zinger at the end of question
> >#7. too funny -- it was so cleverly insulting to Woodward's honor
> >(and manhood).
>
> Yes. I think everyone liked that. Particularly because it's been
> suggested that Miller and Libby had a closer relationship than
> journo-source.
just that regular old journo-source relationship thinger is getting
to be more pornographic sounding than all of the head bobbings of
Monica Lewinski from Washington to Hollywood.
> >nothing against a bit of "poetry" between consenting adults, mind you.
> >i just doubt that Booby would appreciate the insinuation.
>
> Quite.
it had to sting. if Arianna could *speak* clearer english, she could
fill Carnegie Hall for a stand up routine. adios Jay Leno.
> >also, some people, like yourself on your blog, are questioning
> >whether Woodward can call himself a reporter anymore.
> >
> >have you ever heard Bob Woodward speak? he's not a reporter,
> >he's a "ruh...porter."
> >
> >LOL. i love his voice. it's so methodical, yet sleep-inducing.
> >
> >he should cut an album. does he do any of his books on tape?
> >(not that i'd ever buy one now -- unless he's just suckering Bush
> >for the ultimate punchline):
> >
> > "Bush outed Plame"
>
> My fiver says Bush didn't.
well, Bush couldn't out a belly button, but... he could probably be
counted on to cluelessly repeat what he overheard the adults talking
about.
> >anywaysers, here's a link reminder of what started this tangent:
> >
> > 15 Questions for Bob Woodward
> > by Arianna Huffington
> > http://tinyurl.com/acfz2
> >
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/15-questions-for-bob-wood_b_10821.html
[...]
> >anyway, Woodward has apparently gone from:
> >
> > FOLLOW THE MONEY
> >
> >to:
> >
> > SWALLOW THE HONEY
> >
> > (koolaid, payola, etc.)
> >
> >Deep Throat, indeed.
>
> I read somewhere that there are no more Deep Throats, just a load
> of cocksuckers.
i'm a tit man, myself. but i don't mind watching her have a go on me.
-$Zero... When"Playing"ChessWithLyingCheaters...
There'sNoSenseInThinking... SeveralMovesAhead...
Because"TheGame"IsAlreadyOVER...
JustTipOverYourOpponents'King... Spit... AndWalkAway...
ThenAlertTheMedia... ToDocumentTheirPerpwalks...
(IfIt'sSweepsWeek... TheyJustMightBite...)
[while suggesting issuing official denials
that the new B-3 bomber is being activated
ahead of schedule, he's told: 'But there is
no B-3 bomber']
"Perfect! Deny it even exists!'"
-- Conrad Brean
[actor: Robert De Niro; from
the movie: "Wag the Dog"]
"Put... that coffee... down.
Coffee is for closers."
-- Blake
[actor: Alec Baldwin; from the movie:
"Glengarry Glen Ross" (1992)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
[...Unicornian Math temporarily suspended for bandwidth's sake...]
0zjt-02
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical Cognitive
No.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical Cognitive
No.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Merle Finch
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Woodward is fucked. About time some of the sycophantic shitheads in
>Washington got fucked.
>
>About time "protecting a source" was about protecting whistleblowers
>and not a way for the administration to leak shit without having to
>say who's doing the leaking.
Absolutely. The President, VP et al have no right to withhold
information that is not classified and are bound by law to withhold it
when it is. Cheney has made a huge point about not answering questions
and he has no right not to answer for things like secret energy
meetings. He's elected, NOT crowned. He and his minions has a
responsibility to keep Plame's name undercover no matter whether they
thought she was covert or not. And if they're so ignorant of the law
about it, they shouldn't have access to the info.
Woodward apparently thinks he was crowned, too. There are reporters
other than Miller who need to do some time--like Novak, the traitor.
Woodward may have not lied to the grand jury, but he certainly
boldface lied on Larry King about whether he had a bomb or a
firecracker.
Zero
> "Merle Finch" <me...@wnt.sas.com> wrote:
> > Ivor Longhorn <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
> > >source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
> > >Cheney.
> >
> > Probably right. Cheney's so freaking arrogant, he thinks he got
> > crowned king instead of elected vp.
> >
> > >
> > >Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
> >
> > Don't tease me. Please, Mr. F, fry Cheney and try to get Rummy
> > and Wolfie, too.
>
> Don't bet on it.
don't bet on your eternal soul, shillboy.
> This is such an ado about nothing.
Geno poo-poos probable treason against America (and Americans).
WAINS?
> Truth be known,
LOL. as if you have ever been concerned with or interested in Truth.
> there was hardly anyone with any savvy in D.C. who didn't know about
> Plame's former CIA connection. It was general talk around the dinner
> table, and really no secret at all.
cite. you absolute twit. see how easy you suck on propaganda?
you should be ashamed of yourself.
in any case, wouldn't make a damn bit of difference anyway
if the savvy in DC new about Plame's status. duh.
treason is treason.
since everyone is keeping mum about their roles, and Scooter has
been caught in several obstrcutive lies about the whole thing,
obviously there was an active effort to maliciously spread the
classified info out to the general public, just to cover up their
other warmongering lies -- which have led to the death of thousands
of innocent people.
this malicious exposure to discredit Wilson (and intimidate critics)
is not only totally unAmerican, it seriously endangered all classified
connections to Plame -- duh -- and corrupted all connected operations.
talk about aiding and abetting the enemy, FFS.
and Geno cheers them on. so what does that make Geno?
> People who didn't know it are embarrassed because it hints that
> they are out of the loop.
speaking of being out of the loop, you are so far out of the
loop that that you've forgotten what a loop is.
albeit, you're still thoroughly loopy.
> Fitzy is already starting to swallow air in big gulps.
you ought to try that sometime. oxygen is good for the brain.
-$Zero... When"Playing"ChessWithLyingCheaters...
There'sNoSenseInThinking... SeveralMovesAhead...
Because"TheGame"IsAlreadyOVER...
JustTipOverYourOpponents'King... Spit... AndWalkAway...
ThenAlertTheMedia... ToDocumentTheirPerpwalks...
(IfIt'sSweepsWeek... TheyJustMightBite...)
[while suggesting issuing official denials
that the new B-3 bomber is being activated
ahead of schedule, he's told: 'But there is
no B-3 bomber']
"Perfect! Deny it even exists!'"
-- Conrad Brean
[actor: Robert De Niro; from
the movie: "Wag the Dog"]
"Put... that coffee... down.
Coffee is for closers."
-- Blake
[actor: Alec Baldwin; from the movie:
"Glengarry Glen Ross" (1992)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zjt-03 -------------------------------
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>
> >Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical Cognitive
> >Dissonance/y?
[...]
> >================= http://tinyurl.com/cb49q ===================
> >
> >
> >but we'll get back to your "property is theft" delusions after
> >i grind you thru your totally illogical Classical Logic nonsense
> >below.
[...]
> >> >------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? -----------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >---------------------------- FREE CLUE --------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> > that the given assumptions are false.
> >>
> >> They are not false if you give them as assumptions, in the context
> >> we were discussing this in.
> >
> >ok.
> >
> >so what's your answer to the Unicornian Math/Logic question?
> >
> >
> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> > AND 3 > 2
>
> No.
twice, no less. in two different posts.
whoa. talk about being stifled, huh?
translation: "I can't even write a single coherent sentence
about my intellectual undoing, let alone a meaningful paragraph."
alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
wimp.
the monkey and the squirrel have far better excuses.
obligatory unsnip:
============================================
be sure to show your work, because even a monkey has a 25% chance
of picking the right answer.
and a squirrel has even less chance than that. peach or no peach.
remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
you have to show the logic behind all the given mathematical
relationships, otherwise you might as well choose:
[c] Unable to Determine.
and be done with it.
and then fork over my $29, of course.
> Dr Zen
> Clap your hands say yeah.
[CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah!"
[CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah... Yeah... Yeah..."
[CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yesssssss!!!"
2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
> That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
Ted Nugent? KISS?
> or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Boonesfarm or Malt Duck?
> Decide for yourself.
anxiously awaiting your "too bored to answer" bit.
ya gotta start selling ad space, man.
ironically enough, it boosts readership. [FOUITN]
just don't kiss the butts of your advertisers and you'll be fine.
============================================
IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
AND 2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
AND 2 claps + 2 claps = 3 claps + 3 claps
AND 3 claps > 2 claps
THEN 2 claps + 2 claps = 5 claps is:
f] very stifling for Dr. Zen.
-$Zero... DoctorZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOfOneHandClapping...
"Let X... equal... X."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Let X = X"; from the
album: "Big Science" (1982)]
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
"Only two things are infinite...
the universe... and human stupidity...
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
"gorgeous doesn't care
what anyone else is doing.
gorgeous trumps everything"
-- Willem Dafoe
[narrating a car commercial (2005)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-01 -------------------------------
Ivor Longhorn
said:
As Digby pointed out on Hullaballoo, the administration should always
be talking on the record about its policies. If they are not,
reporters should be asking why. The reporters should quite simply be
saying no, you cannot tell me this stuff off the record. You need to
go on the record or just not tell me it.
About the reporters, you have to ask what has happened when reporters
think it is laudable *not* to tell the story.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
No, just "no".
>alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
No. It's just "no".
>
>wimp.
>
>the monkey and the squirrel have far better excuses.
>
>
>obligatory unsnip:
>
>
>============================================
>
>be sure to show your work, because even a monkey has a 25% chance
>of picking the right answer.
>
>and a squirrel has even less chance than that. peach or no peach.
>
>remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
>while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
>
>i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
>you have to show the logic behind all the given mathematical
>relationships, otherwise you might as well choose:
No, you do not. You need only show that the logic is sound.
> [c] Unable to Determine.
>
>and be done with it.
>
>and then fork over my $29, of course.
You cheated.
>
>
>> Dr Zen
>> Clap your hands say yeah.
>
>[CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah!"
>
>
>[CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah... Yeah... Yeah..."
>
>
>[CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yesssssss!!!"
>
>
>2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
Yes.
But IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 2 claps + 2 claps...
>
>
>> That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
>
>Ted Nugent? KISS?
>
>
>> or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
>
>Boonesfarm or Malt Duck?
>
>
>> Decide for yourself.
>
>anxiously awaiting your "too bored to answer" bit.
>
>
>> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
>
>ya gotta start selling ad space, man.
No.
>
>ironically enough, it boosts readership. [FOUITN]
>
>just don't kiss the butts of your advertisers and you'll be fine.
I don't want it.
>
>
>============================================
>
>
> IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
>
> AND 2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
> AND 2 claps + 2 claps = 3 claps + 3 claps
> AND 3 claps > 2 claps
No.
>
> THEN 2 claps + 2 claps = 5 claps is:
Stupid.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Zero
>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >>
> >> >Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical Cognitive
> >> >Dissonance/y?
[...]
> >> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >> >> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a] True
> >> >> > b] False
> >> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-------------------------- FREE CLUE ------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >> > that the given assumptions are false.
> >> >>
> >> >> They are not false if you give them as assumptions, in the
> >> >> context we were discussing this in.
> >> >
> >> >ok.
> >> >
> >> >so what's your answer to the Unicornian Math/Logic question?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >twice, no less. in two different posts.
> >
> >whoa. talk about being stifled, huh?
> >
> >translation: "I can't even write a single coherent sentence
> >about my intellectual undoing, let alone a meaningful paragraph."
>
> No, just "no".
um... does that translate into [a], [b], [c], or [d]?
just "No" = "cheating"
(like a peachless and foolishly-proud squirrely squirrel).
> >alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
>
> No. It's just "no".
tedious.
> >wimp.
> >
> >the monkey and the squirrel have far better excuses.
> >
> >
> >obligatory unsnip:
> >
> >be sure to show your work, because even a monkey has a 25%
> >chance of picking the right answer.
> >
> >and a squirrel has even less chance than that. peach or no peach.
> >
> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
>
> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
"They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
as i've shown you in previous posts.
you don't like it, you "can't" figure out why it works,
you "can't" translate the "THEN" statement into either
[a], [b], [c], or [d]... well... if you "can't" or "won't",
you gotta throw in the towel on your claim to being logical
and rational. it's inexorable.
get it?
your refusal to pick either [a], [b], [c], or [d]
(and then be able to explain why and how) means i win.
$29. pay up.
> >i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
>
> No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
i didn't. i gave workable assumptions. no contradictions.
> >you have to show the logic behind all the given mathematical
> >relationships, otherwise you might as well choose:
>
> No, you do not. You need only show that the logic is sound.
well then, logically speaking, does your wimpy cheating "No"
translate into [a], [b], [c], or [d]?
the burden's on you, loserboy.
ante up.
show us some sound logic.
[a], [b], [c], or [d]? and why.
> > [c] Unable to Determine.
> >
> >and be done with it.
> >
> >and then fork over my $29, of course.
>
> You cheated.
Gawd.
_i_ cheated? no. i'm not cheating, i'm outwitting you.
_you're_ cheating. it's gotta sting.
because i'm a zillion times more logical than you. duh.
> >> Dr Zen
> >> Clap your hands say yeah.
> >
> >[CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah!"
> >
> >[CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah... Yeah... Yeah..."
> >
> >[CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yesssssss!!!"
> >
> >2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
>
> Yes.
[clap]... "yeah!"
> But IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 2 claps + 2 claps...
welcome to Zen's Unicornia. enjoy your stay, loser.
[wild applause]
[...]
> >> Decide for yourself.
> >
> >anxiously awaiting your "too bored to answer" bit.
> >
> >> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
> >
> >ya gotta start selling ad space, man.
>
> No.
a] True. you don't _have_ to sell ad space.
it was just a helpful suggestion.
> >ironically enough, it boosts readership. [FOUITN]
> >
> >just don't kiss the butts of your advertisers and you'll be fine.
>
> I don't want it.
oh.
you'd rather bitch about being unfairly "exploited" by your employer.
got it.
you're a "helpless" victim. a voluntary victim of theft.
here's a hanky.
> >============================================
> >
> > IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
> >
> > AND 2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
> > AND 2 claps + 2 claps = 3 claps + 3 claps
> > AND 3 claps > 2 claps
>
> No.
translation: "No. I will never admit defeat. No. Never."
[wild applause]
even Goalpost, Wendicons, and Stan (The Pussy) are clapping, FFS.
> > THEN 2 claps + 2 claps = 5 claps is:
>
> Stupid.
and that translates into which?:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
cha' ching.
that'll be $29, even.
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly-proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more to worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is to worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
the interest balance _alone_ on all my borrowed peaches
is getting a little ridiculous.
a creative genius has gotta eat, ya know?
[Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>Kentucky Derby?
do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
not make any true statements about Zen's special
little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
-- $Zero...
"Let X... equal... X."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Let X = X"; from the
album: "Big Science" (1982)]
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
"Only two things are infinite...
the universe... and human stupidity...
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
"gorgeous doesn't care
what anyone else is doing.
gorgeous trumps everything"
-- Willem Dafoe
[narrating a car commercial (2005)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/a2705e7e942a5b8a/c3c9f955a53dc0a1#c3c9f955a53dc0a1
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-02 -------------------------------
gekko
Longhorn <longho...@gmail.com>, who went on in
news:gqm4o1d816cdbucpu...@4ax.com to bemoan:
> No. It's just "no".
Y'know. I just *hate* those commercials.
--
gekko
Forget about world peace...visualize using your turn signal.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
Yes.
>just "No" = "cheating"
No. Not just.
>
>(like a peachless and foolishly-proud squirrely squirrel).
No hyphen needed.
>
>
>> >alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
>>
>> No. It's just "no".
>
>tedious.
It's just "no", man. If you need to ask you probably can't understand
the answer, even though it's fucking elementary.
>
>
>> >wimp.
>> >
>> >the monkey and the squirrel have far better excuses.
>> >
>> >
>> >obligatory unsnip:
>> >
>> >be sure to show your work, because even a monkey has a 25%
>> >chance of picking the right answer.
>> >
>> >and a squirrel has even less chance than that. peach or no peach.
>> >
>> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
>> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
>>
>> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
>
>yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
No.
>
> "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
>
>and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
No.
>
>as i've shown you in previous posts.
No.
>
>you don't like it, you "can't" figure out why it works,
>you "can't" translate the "THEN" statement into either
>[a], [b], [c], or [d]... well... if you "can't" or "won't",
>you gotta throw in the towel on your claim to being logical
>and rational. it's inexorable.
Logic is inexorable. You can't bargain with it. So no.
>
>get it?
>
>your refusal to pick either [a], [b], [c], or [d]
>(and then be able to explain why and how) means i win.
I didn't refuse to pick one because I couldn't.
>$29. pay up.
I'm afraid you owe me.
>
>
>> >i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
>>
>> No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
>
>i didn't. i gave workable assumptions. no contradictions.
No. You are not allowed to redefine the operators. They are external
to the propositions.
>> >you have to show the logic behind all the given mathematical
>> >relationships, otherwise you might as well choose:
>>
>> No, you do not. You need only show that the logic is sound.
>
>well then, logically speaking, does your wimpy cheating "No"
>translate into [a], [b], [c], or [d]?
You figure it out.
>
>the burden's on you, loserboy.
>
>ante up.
>
>show us some sound logic.
>
>[a], [b], [c], or [d]? and why.
No.
>
>
>> > [c] Unable to Determine.
>> >
>> >and be done with it.
>> >
>> >and then fork over my $29, of course.
>>
>> You cheated.
>
>Gawd.
>
>_i_ cheated? no. i'm not cheating, i'm outwitting you.
You are not "witting" me at all. The only way you could even begin to
make your case was by cheating.
IF 2+2 = 3+3, 3 > 2 is false. The rest is immaterial.
Because IF 2+2 = 3+3, you may not assume 2+2 != 3+3. That's p and
not-p. Allow that assumption and any conclusion you like is true.
Whichever letter that was.
>_you're_ cheating. it's gotta sting.
>
>because i'm a zillion times more logical than you. duh.
>
I'm afraid not. The rules are that you may not assume p and not-p. If
you do, ANY conclusion can follow.
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN my dog can sing like Maria Callas.
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN bananas are pink.
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN Newcastle United play their home games on
the moon.
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>> >> Dr Zen
>> >> Clap your hands say yeah.
>> >
>> >[CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah!"
>> >
>> >[CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yeah... Yeah... Yeah..."
>> >
>> >[CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!] "Yesssssss!!!"
>> >
>> >2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
>>
>> Yes.
>
>[clap]... "yeah!"
>
>
>> But IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 2 claps + 2 claps...
>
>welcome to Zen's Unicornia. enjoy your stay, loser.
>
>[wild applause]
>
>[...]
>
>
>> >> Decide for yourself.
>> >
>> >anxiously awaiting your "too bored to answer" bit.
>> >
>> >> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
>> >
>> >ya gotta start selling ad space, man.
>>
>> No.
>
>a] True. you don't _have_ to sell ad space.
>
>it was just a helpful suggestion.
I don't have enough readers to make advertising worth bothering with.
>
>> >ironically enough, it boosts readership. [FOUITN]
>> >
>> >just don't kiss the butts of your advertisers and you'll be fine.
>>
>> I don't want it.
>
>oh.
>
>you'd rather bitch about being unfairly "exploited" by your employer.
I'd rather not commercialise my dull witterings.
>got it.
>
>you're a "helpless" victim. a voluntary victim of theft.
>
>here's a hanky.
>
The options are not "carry advertising" or "be a wage slave". If they
were, I'd probably consider it a lot more seriously.
>
>> >============================================
>> >
>> > IF 3 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
>> >
>> > AND 2 claps + 3 claps = 5 claps
>> > AND 2 claps + 2 claps = 3 claps + 3 claps
>> > AND 3 claps > 2 claps
>>
>> No.
>
>translation: "No. I will never admit defeat. No. Never."
No.
>
>
>[wild applause]
>
>
>even Goalpost, Wendicons, and Stan (The Pussy) are clapping, FFS.
I think not.
>
>
>> > THEN 2 claps + 2 claps = 5 claps is:
>>
>> Stupid.
>
>and that translates into which?:
>
> a] True
True. If you allow p and not-p, ANY conclusion is true.
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
>cha' ching.
>
>that'll be $29, even.
Yes, it will. How are you planning to pay?
>
>
>-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
>AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
>OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
>
>
>to wit:
>
> All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
> such foolishly-proud assholes and START working on
> your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
> There's wayyy more to worthwhile stuff to agree about
> than there is to worthless stuff to disagree about.
> Double duh.
Logic is just logic.
>
>
>so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
>
>the interest balance _alone_ on all my borrowed peaches
>is getting a little ridiculous.
>
>a creative genius has gotta eat, ya know?
>
>
> [Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
> Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
>
> ">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
> >equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
> >Kentucky Derby?
That's right.
>
> do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
> yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
> not make any true statements about Zen's special
> little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
> -- $Zero...
Oh dear. Zero lacks the power of "if".
Get more if into your life, buddy.
Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
[...]
> >> >> >so what's your answer to the Unicornian Math/Logic question?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >twice, no less. in two different posts.
> >> >
> >> >whoa. talk about being stifled, huh?
> >> >
> >> >translation: "I can't even write a single coherent sentence
> >> >about my intellectual undoing, let alone a meaningful paragraph."
> >>
> >> No, just "no".
> >
> >um... does that translate into [a], [b], [c], or [d]?
>
> Yes.
tedious.
> >just "No" = "cheating"
>
> No. Not just.
tedi...
> >(like a peachless and foolishly-proud squirrely squirrel).
>
> No hyphen needed.
i'll deduct $1 off the $29 if you'll explain when it is needed.
what makes a compound thinger need a hyphen?
Mingo tried to explain it once, but i wasn't paying attention.
however, if it's gonna cost me a buck, i'll listen up.
> >> >alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
> >>
> >> No. It's just "no".
> >
> >tedious.
>
> It's just "no", man. If you need to ask you probably can't
> understand the answer, even though it's fucking elementary.
yeah. look who's talking about being whooshed by "the elementary."
Gawd.
[...]
> >> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
> >> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
> >>
> >> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
> >
> >yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
>
> No.
yes.
"They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
EOFS. or pay up double on the brown-haired Beth thinger.
> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
> >
> >and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
>
> No.
yes. the Unicornian Mathematical relationship.
which also gives us this wonderful little statement:
"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
Unicornian Math is valid. it's known.
just like Base Three math is known.
i know it. you know it. Ashby knows it. Goalpost knows it.
Josh knows it. even Raypert Pupkin knows it. EOFS. valid math.
important reminder: no one has disproved it.
that's science, baby. deal with it.
> >as i've shown you in previous posts.
>
> No.
yes. the inexorable odd and even nature of "UM".
and how it behaves in mathematical equations.
it's 100% consistent. just like Base three, etc.
> >you don't like it, you "can't" figure out why it works,
> >you "can't" translate the "THEN" statement into either
> >[a], [b], [c], or [d]... well... if you "can't" or "won't",
> >you gotta throw in the towel on your claim to being logical
> >and rational. it's inexorable.
>
> Logic is inexorable. You can't bargain with it. So no.
the Unicornian Mathematical relationship exists AND works.
it's inexorably consistent. there's no bargaining with it.
so yes.
> >get it?
> >
> >your refusal to pick either [a], [b], [c], or [d]
> >(and then be able to explain why and how) means i win.
>
> I didn't refuse to pick one because I couldn't.
tedious.
> >$29. pay up.
>
> I'm afraid you owe me.
yeah, i'll knock off a dollar if you give me a hyphen lesson.
> >> >i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
> >>
> >> No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
> >
> >i didn't. i gave workable assumptions. no contradictions.
>
> No. You are not allowed to redefine the operators.
> They are external to the propositions.
you'll now show me how i've "illegally" redefined "the operators".
in fact, you'll show me how i've redefined "the operators" at all.
good luck, BPS-boy.
because i haven't "redefined" anything at all.
+ - =
are all in tact. prove otherwise. IOW: cite. or pay up.
it's exactly like "the operators" below are fully intact:
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
anyone who knows Base Three will choose: [a] True.
if you don't know Base Three, using your flawed logic,
you'd choose "True" for the wrong reason.
*you* know the principles behind Unicornian Math, so:
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
you have to choose "True" because the statement "2 + 2 = 5"
_is_ "True" in that context. EOFS. whereas, confronted with
the following:
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
you're now obligated to select:
[b] False
because "2 + 2 = 4" is NOT consistent with:
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
sorry, illogicboy.
SHTW?
("see how that works", in case you were scratching your head).
or is logic and math dependent on the number of people who know it?
SHTW?
[...]
> >_i_ cheated? no. i'm not cheating, i'm outwitting you.
>
> You are not "witting" me at all. The only way you could even
> begin to make your case was by cheating.
Gawd. stop Goalposting, puhlease.
> IF 2+2 = 3+3, 3 > 2 is false. The rest is immaterial.
bzzzt. see above
> Because IF 2+2 = 3+3, you may not assume 2+2 != 3+3.
_i_ didn't assume that 2+2 != 3+3. _you_ did. duh.
for no reason whatsoever.
> That's p and not-p.
no, it isn't.
> Allow that assumption and any conclusion you like is true.
yikes. now you're parroting me:
[first moi, then Zen, then moi.]
">>if you go around making assumptions about a "unicorn" world,
>>ANY conclusions you draw would be just as valid as the next.
>
>*psst* Paula *whispers* ask him how we use deductive logic
>to prove mathematics. What do we most usually assume?
*psst* Zen, would you like to be the judge for our wager?
because you're doing an ace job of proving me right.
or will you somehow bizarrely disqualify yourself as well?
go ahead, Zen... hop on your unicorn and tell everyone what
'we most usually assume' to prove mathematics.
and then tell everyone the difference between 'IF' and 'Assume'
but of course, not before you finish telling them about the
difference between 3 Smith and 3 Jones."
-- $Zero...
[Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>Kentucky Derby?
do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
not make any true statements about Zen's special
little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
-- $Zero...
pay up. $29 (-$1, your choice).
> Whichever letter that was.
[a]
> >_you're_ cheating. it's gotta sting.
> >
> >because i'm a zillion times more logical than you. duh.
>
> I'm afraid not. The rules are that you may not assume p and not-p.
i didn't. you did. for no reason whatsoever.
you can't even claim ignorance of Unicornian Math.
>If you do, ANY conclusion can follow.
agreed.
"if you go around making assumptions about a "unicorn" world,
ANY conclusions you draw would be just as valid as the next."
-- $Zero...
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN my dog can sing like Maria Callas.
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN bananas are pink.
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN Newcastle United play their home games on
> the moon.
maybe. maybe. maybe. (Unable to Determine)
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
no. False.
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+4 = 7
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+4 = 9
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+5 = 9
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 5+5 = 9
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+5+1 = 9.5
etc. as you well know.
[...]
> >-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
> >AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
> >OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
> >
> >
> >to wit:
> >
> > All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
> > such foolishly-proud assholes and START working on
> > your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
> > There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
> > than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
> > Double duh.
>
> Logic is just logic.
yes, but as i have handily proved, it's ALWAYS culturally crippled.
should that be hyphenated? why not?
yet another chance to knock off another dollar from the $29
that you owe me (unless the explanation is the same as the
one you may have chosen to give me earlier above).
isn't capitalism grand?
> >so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
> >
> >the interest balance _alone_ on all my borrowed peaches
> >is getting a little ridiculous.
> >
> >a creative genius has gotta eat, ya know?
> >
> >
> > [Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
> > Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
> >
> > ">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
> > >equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
> > >Kentucky Derby?
>
> That's right.
giddy up, Unicorn, giddy up!
> > do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
> > yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
> > not make any true statements about Zen's special
> > little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
> > -- $Zero...
>
> Oh dear. Zero lacks the power of "if".
>
> Get more if into your life, buddy.
i'm an Uncertifiably Sane Creative Genius Realist Idealist (tm), FFS.
i've got way more "IF" in my life than not.
whereas, yourself, you can't even accept this tiny little if:
If 3 + 3 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2
like, whoa.
but see, being a USCGRI(tm), i can turn any old "IF" into a "SO".
as in, "make it so."
you can do it too. it just takes a bit of joyful creativity.
-$Zero... http://www.paypal.com... K?...
0zju-03
Zero
> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
[...]
> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>
> no. False.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
Unable to determine.
because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
equal anything. i had mistakenly thought that you
had defined um = 0.5 (i didn't notice the absence of
the requisite second defining assumption).
however, everything works fine when it's there.
like so:
IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, THEN 3+3 = 5
a] True
IF 2+2 = 6, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 4
a] True
IF 2+2 = 7, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 3
a] True
IF 2+2 = 8, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 2
a] True
IF 2+2 = 9, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 1
a] True
you don't really need the "3 > 2".
it's just there for those who would try to argue
that the numerals don't represent their numeric
values.
[...]
oops. i may have just figured out how to disprove
this Unicornian thing. i'm not sure.
or it might just be a potentially pardoxical glitch.
i'll have to explore the possibilities a bit further.
right now, it's just a vague untested hunch.
in the meantime...
pay up, Zen.
> -$Zero... http://www.paypal.com... K?...
"i came to america in 1916.
it was the most beautiful thing
i had ever seen."
-- Sam Krichinsky
[actor: Armin Mueller-Stahl;
from the movie: "Avalon" (1990)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/a2705e7e942a5b8a/c3c9f955a53dc0a1#c3c9f955a53dc0a1
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is currently: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-04 -------------------------------
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >> >so what's your answer to the Unicornian Math/Logic question?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
>> >> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
>> >> >> > AND 3 > 2
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.
>> >> >
>> >> >twice, no less. in two different posts.
>> >> >
>> >> >whoa. talk about being stifled, huh?
>> >> >
>> >> >translation: "I can't even write a single coherent sentence
>> >> >about my intellectual undoing, let alone a meaningful paragraph."
>> >>
>> >> No, just "no".
>> >
>> >um... does that translate into [a], [b], [c], or [d]?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>tedious.
>
Not for me.
>
>> >just "No" = "cheating"
>>
>> No. Not just.
>
>tedi...
>
>
>> >(like a peachless and foolishly-proud squirrely squirrel).
>>
>> No hyphen needed.
>
>i'll deduct $1 off the $29 if you'll explain when it is needed.
Never after an "-ly" adverb.
>what makes a compound thinger need a hyphen?
If the first word is an adverb, only to avoid ambiguity.
"A well-known man" is a man who is well known; but "a well known man"
could be a man who is well and known.
It's hard to write clearcut rules.
Arleen asked about "subject specific strategies", which requires
hyphenating. I'd say that was because specific describes "subject",
not "strategies". As a rule, if a word belongs more to the other word
that precedes the thing described than it does to the thing described,
you're looking at a hyphen, unless it's an adverb, when you should do
it only to avoid ambiguity..
"a fat-cheeked villain"
"a big-boned woman"
"human-made goods"
Take care not to hyphenate "most" (when used as an adverb, which is
always when yoked to another word to describe another word) or "many"
(when used as an adverb).
>Mingo tried to explain it once, but i wasn't paying attention.
>
>however, if it's gonna cost me a buck, i'll listen up.
Just use the simple rule I gave above. You'll be right far more often
than you're wrong.
>> >> >alternate translation: "Too bored to answer."
>> >>
>> >> No. It's just "no".
>> >
>> >tedious.
>>
>> It's just "no", man. If you need to ask you probably can't
>> understand the answer, even though it's fucking elementary.
>
>yeah. look who's talking about being whooshed by "the elementary."
Whatever. Look who needs to ask whether to hyphenate "foolishly
proud".
>
>Gawd.
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
>> >> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
>> >
>> >yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
>>
>> No.
>
>yes.
No.
>
> "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
Note the caveat I provide.
>
>
>EOFS. or pay up double on the brown-haired Beth thinger.
No. The same rules apply to that as to this.
>
>
>> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
>> >
>> >and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
>>
>> No.
>
>yes. the Unicornian Mathematical relationship.
LOL. That's far too big of a stretch for the word "valid".
>
>which also gives us this wonderful little statement:
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
Is it?
>
>Unicornian Math is valid. it's known.
>
>just like Base Three math is known.
Hmmm. Actually, no.
>
>i know it. you know it. Ashby knows it. Goalpost knows it.
>
>Josh knows it. even Raypert Pupkin knows it. EOFS. valid math.
>
>important reminder: no one has disproved it.
No one needs to. It's wrong in its face.
>
>that's science, baby. deal with it.
>
>
>> >as i've shown you in previous posts.
>>
>> No.
>
>yes. the inexorable odd and even nature of "UM".
>
>and how it behaves in mathematical equations.
>
>it's 100% consistent. just like Base three, etc.
I'm afraid it is not. No system can be. Shall we do that one next?
>> >you don't like it, you "can't" figure out why it works,
>> >you "can't" translate the "THEN" statement into either
>> >[a], [b], [c], or [d]... well... if you "can't" or "won't",
>> >you gotta throw in the towel on your claim to being logical
>> >and rational. it's inexorable.
>>
>> Logic is inexorable. You can't bargain with it. So no.
>
>the Unicornian Mathematical relationship exists AND works.
>
>it's inexorably consistent. there's no bargaining with it.
I am looking forward to spanking you ferociously on that score. Just
say the word.
>so yes.
>
>
>> >get it?
>> >
>> >your refusal to pick either [a], [b], [c], or [d]
>> >(and then be able to explain why and how) means i win.
>>
>> I didn't refuse to pick one because I couldn't.
>
>tedious.
No.
>
>
>> >$29. pay up.
>>
>> I'm afraid you owe me.
>
>yeah, i'll knock off a dollar if you give me a hyphen lesson.
>
>
>> >> >i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
>> >>
>> >> No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
>> >
>> >i didn't. i gave workable assumptions. no contradictions.
>>
>> No. You are not allowed to redefine the operators.
>> They are external to the propositions.
>
>you'll now show me how i've "illegally" redefined "the operators".
The operators are external to the propositions. They express the
operations of the logic and consequently, to remain logical, your
arguments cannot redefine them.
You could *explicitly* redefine ">" to be a sign of equality, but you
didn't do so.
>in fact, you'll show me how i've redefined "the operators" at all.
If you have not, you have assumed p and not-p. You choose which error
in construction of your logic you made.
>good luck, BPS-boy.
>
>because i haven't "redefined" anything at all.
>
> + - =
>
>are all in tact. prove otherwise. IOW: cite. or pay up.
What am I required to cite?
>
>it's exactly like "the operators" below are fully intact:
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>
> a] True
Yes. Well done. This is perfectly sound logically. You have in fact
proven my case regarding the 3s and 2s, and rather neatly. Thanks.
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
>
>
>anyone who knows Base Three will choose: [a] True.
>
>if you don't know Base Three, using your flawed logic,
>you'd choose "True" for the wrong reason.
You don't need to know base three. The logic is sound regardless.
>*you* know the principles behind Unicornian Math, so:
>
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
No.
> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True
Yes. As would any conclusion be.
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>you have to choose "True" because the statement "2 + 2 = 5"
>_is_ "True" in that context.
Any conclusion would be. If you assume p and not-p, all conclusions
are true.
> EOFS. whereas, confronted with
>the following:
>
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
> THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:
>
> a] True
>
Also true. All conclusions would be.
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
>you're now obligated to select:
>
> [b] False
>
No. Absolutely not. All conclusions would be true.
>because "2 + 2 = 4" is NOT consistent with:
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
Any conclusion is consistent with it.
>
>sorry, illogicboy.
>
>SHTW?
>
>("see how that works", in case you were scratching your head).
It doesn't work.
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN elephants are three inches tall at the shoulder
is true.
It should be apparent why. That it is not is your problem.
>or is logic and math dependent on the number of people who know it?
No. Logic is not dependent on anything or anyone. Mathematics isn't
either, although why has eluded philosophers.
>
>SHTW?
>
>[...]
>
>
>> >_i_ cheated? no. i'm not cheating, i'm outwitting you.
>>
>> You are not "witting" me at all. The only way you could even
>> begin to make your case was by cheating.
>
>Gawd. stop Goalposting, puhlease.
I hardly need to, man.
>
>
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3, 3 > 2 is false. The rest is immaterial.
>
>bzzzt. see above
There is nothing above that contradicts that. Base three is perfectly
logical, Z.
>
>> Because IF 2+2 = 3+3, you may not assume 2+2 != 3+3.
>
>_i_ didn't assume that 2+2 != 3+3. _you_ did. duh.
No, you did. You plainly do not understand that you did.
>for no reason whatsoever.
>
>
>> That's p and not-p.
>
>no, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
If 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, !(3 > 2). My apologies to any professional logician
types for slack notation. Long time since I did logic class.
It doesn't matter what the symbols stand for. That's the point with
the base 3. It doesn't matter what the symbols stand for. The logic is
sound regardless. But in your example here, it is not.
>> Allow that assumption and any conclusion you like is true.
>
>yikes. now you're parroting me:
No. My contention about the 2s and 3s was entirely consistent. Yours
is entirely not.
>
>
> [first moi, then Zen, then moi.]
>
>
> ">>if you go around making assumptions about a "unicorn" world,
> >>ANY conclusions you draw would be just as valid as the next.
No. This is wrong.
> >
> >*psst* Paula *whispers* ask him how we use deductive logic
> >to prove mathematics. What do we most usually assume?
>
> *psst* Zen, would you like to be the judge for our wager?
>
> because you're doing an ace job of proving me right.
>
> or will you somehow bizarrely disqualify yourself as well?
>
> go ahead, Zen... hop on your unicorn and tell everyone what
> 'we most usually assume' to prove mathematics.
>
> and then tell everyone the difference between 'IF' and 'Assume'
>
> but of course, not before you finish telling them about the
> difference between 3 Smith and 3 Jones."
> -- $Zero...
>
>
> [Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
> Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
>
> ">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
> >equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
> >Kentucky Derby?
>
> do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
> yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
> not make any true statements about Zen's special
> little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
> -- $Zero...
>
>
>pay up. $29 (-$1, your choice).
No, you cheated and lied, but you still lost. Pay me.
>
>
>> Whichever letter that was.
>
>[a]
>
>> >_you're_ cheating. it's gotta sting.
>> >
>> >because i'm a zillion times more logical than you. duh.
>>
>> I'm afraid not. The rules are that you may not assume p and not-p.
>
>i didn't. you did. for no reason whatsoever.
IF 3 + 3 = 2 + 2, !(3 > 2).
>you can't even claim ignorance of Unicornian Math.
>
Given that I refused to wade through it, I certainly can and do.
>
>>If you do, ANY conclusion can follow.
>
>agreed.
>
> "if you go around making assumptions about a "unicorn" world,
> ANY conclusions you draw would be just as valid as the next."
> -- $Zero...
No. This is where you are wrong.
Logic is true for *any* world. That's not to say that every world must
be logical.
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN my dog can sing like Maria Callas.
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN bananas are pink.
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN Newcastle United play their home games on
>> the moon.
>
>maybe. maybe. maybe. (Unable to Determine)
No. All true.
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>
>no. False.
No. True.
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
True.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+4 = 7
True.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+4 = 9
True.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+5 = 9
True.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 5+5 = 9
True.
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 4+5+1 = 9.5
True.
>
>etc. as you well know.
Yes, I do.
But not because the assumptions are not true in base ten. Definedly
not.
>[...]
>
>
>> >-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
>> >AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
>> >OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
>> >
>> >
>> >to wit:
>> >
>> > All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
>> > such foolishly-proud assholes and START working on
>> > your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
>> > There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
>> > than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
>> > Double duh.
>>
>> Logic is just logic.
>
>yes, but as i have handily proved, it's ALWAYS culturally crippled.
>
>should that be hyphenated? why not?
No. Work it out for yourself.
>
>yet another chance to knock off another dollar from the $29
>that you owe me (unless the explanation is the same as the
>one you may have chosen to give me earlier above).
The explanation is different but related.
>
>isn't capitalism grand?
No.
>
>
>> >so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
>> >
>> >the interest balance _alone_ on all my borrowed peaches
>> >is getting a little ridiculous.
>> >
>> >a creative genius has gotta eat, ya know?
>> >
>> >
>> > [Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
>> > Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
>> >
>> > ">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>> > >equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>> > >Kentucky Derby?
>>
>> That's right.
>
>giddy up, Unicorn, giddy up!
Why can you not assume such a world? Are you saying it's impossible to
assume worlds that do not exist?
Why? You're yet to give even one reason you can't.
And what a peculiar assertion to make in a writing newsgroup!
>> > do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
>> > yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
>> > not make any true statements about Zen's special
>> > little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
>> > -- $Zero...
>>
>> Oh dear. Zero lacks the power of "if".
>>
>> Get more if into your life, buddy.
>
>
>i'm an Uncertifiably Sane Creative Genius Realist Idealist (tm), FFS.
>
>i've got way more "IF" in my life than not.
You don't seem to have any at all, I'm afraid.
>
>whereas, yourself, you can't even accept this tiny little if:
>
> If 3 + 3 = 5, AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, AND 3 > 2
No.
>
>like, whoa.
>
>but see, being a USCGRI(tm), i can turn any old "IF" into a "SO".
>
>as in, "make it so."
Yes. But if you "make it so", you make ANYTHING so.
>you can do it too. it just takes a bit of joyful creativity.
Yes. I can do it quite happily. Any conclusion becomes true.
>
>-$Zero... http://www.paypal.com... K?...
>
No, I don't have an account.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Zero wrote:
>
>> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>>
>> no. False.
>>
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
>
>Unable to determine.
>
True.
>because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
>equal anything.
No. With those two assumptions, any conclusion is true.
> i had mistakenly thought that you
>had defined um = 0.5 (i didn't notice the absence of
>the requisite second defining assumption).
>
>however, everything works fine when it's there.
>
>like so:
>
> IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, THEN 3+3 = 5
>
> a] True
>
>
Yes.
> IF 2+2 = 6, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 4
>
> a] True
No. Unable to determine.
> IF 2+2 = 7, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 3
>
> a] True
Unable to determine.
>
> IF 2+2 = 8, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 2
>
> a] True
Only if 2, 3 and 8 all have zero value.
> IF 2+2 = 9, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 1
>
> a] True
>
You simply can't determine it from those assumptions.
>
>you don't really need the "3 > 2".
You definitely don't want the 3 > 2.
>it's just there for those who would try to argue
>that the numerals don't represent their numeric
>values.
What is the "numeric value" of 10?
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>oops. i may have just figured out how to disprove
>this Unicornian thing. i'm not sure.
>
>or it might just be a potentially pardoxical glitch.
You don't say. I expect some logic has intruded on your fantasy.
>
>i'll have to explore the possibilities a bit further.
>
>right now, it's just a vague untested hunch.
>
>
>in the meantime...
>
>pay up, Zen.
Nope.
>
>
>> -$Zero... http://www.paypal.com... K?...
No. I don't have an account.
Zero
>"Zero" said:
> >Zero wrote:
> >> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
> >>
> >> no. False.
nope. Unable to determine.
> >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
> >
> >Unable to determine.
>
> True.
nope. Unable to Determine.
> >because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
> >equal anything.
>
> No. With those two assumptions, any conclusion is true.
well, yes and no (this will make more sense by the end of post)
> No. With those two assumptions, any conclusion is true.
which is exactly why it's "Unable to Determine".
for instance, in presently known Uncicornian Math:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
so anyway, you're claiming it's "True" because you're incorrectly
insisting that:
"IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is intriniscally False
because you're wrongly assuming that it's a contradiction,
therefore you're claiming that any conclusion you make in
any subsequent "THEN" statement would yield a "True".
but your False assumption that:
"IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is contradictory therefore False
...has therefore given you the wrong answer.
it's actually "Unable to Determine" because you can't suss out
from just those two assumptions what the value of "um" is.
SHTW?
do i really need to tell you again how Unicornian Math works?
are you insisting upon it?
ok. but i'm only giving you some of the explanation, because
i think you're being willfully obtuse just because you think
it proves some sort of point, but it doesn't.
Unicornian Math works. every time. it doesn't matter how
many people understand it at this (or any other) juncture.
just like Base Three works -- every time -- regardless of
how many people understand its underlying principles.
Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
so i'll provide the partial explanation below. if you
still want to claim ignorance of its fundamental Unicornian
Mathematical properties, i'll explain more next post.
anyway, the most important thing about Unicornian Math is
the inexorable intrinsic nature of Odd and Even numbers.
one of the oldest discoveries of math itself was the
existence of Odd and Even numbers -- which we've built
quite a bit of math theory on since then. prime numbers
for instance. Unicornian Math is just another discovery.
> >i had mistakenly thought that you had defined um = 0.5
> >(i didn't notice the absence of the requisite second
> >defining assumption).
> >
> >however, everything works fine when it's there.
> >
> >like so:
> >
> > IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, THEN 3+3 = 5
> >
> > a] True
>
> Yes.
but only because there are enough assumptions to conclude that:
um = 0.5
not because 2+2 = 3+3 is contradictory, nor because you
want to pretend that there's a "3 Jones" and a "3 Smith"
which can magically be transformed to mean something
other than their intrinsic numeric placeholder values.
(regardless of which number base one uses).
3 is ALWAYS greater than 2. it's one of those fundamental
assumptions we make about numeric placeholders. the only
time that 3 is less than 2 is when it is preceded by a minus
sign. like so:
-3 < 2
it's called language. give over, huh?
> > IF 2+2 = 6, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 4
> >
> > a] True
>
>
> No. Unable to determine.
no. it's True because um = 1
> > IF 2+2 = 7, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 3
> >
> > a] True
>
> Unable to determine.
no. it's True because um = 1.5
> > IF 2+2 = 8, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 2
> >
> > a] True
>
> Only if 2, 3 and 8 all have zero value.
no. it's True because um = 2
> > IF 2+2 = 9, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 1
> >
> > a] True
>
> You simply can't determine it from those assumptions.
no. it's True because um = 2.5
> >you don't really need the "3 > 2".
>
> You definitely don't want the 3 > 2.
it's a given. i only include it to save the time of
explaining that numeric symbols cannot be substituted
for X variables (well, they can, but they must maintain
their fundamental placeholder relationships to eachother
-- as well as their Odd/Evenness). get it?
"Odd and Even are the binary nature of infinity"
mathematically speaking, at the very least.
> >it's just there for those who would try to argue
> >that the numerals don't represent their numeric
> >values.
>
> What is the "numeric value" of 10?
depends on the context. depends on the base you're using.
unless there's reason to surmise otherwise, it's Base Ten.
therefore, the default numeric value of 10 is equal to ten.
culturally crippling in some cases, yes. but there it is.
> >[...]
> >
> >oops. i may have just figured out how to disprove
> >this Unicornian thing. i'm not sure.
> >
> >or it might just be a potentially pardoxical glitch.
>
> You don't say. I expect some logic has intruded on your fantasy.
see above. the only paradox that might exist is if we can find
an example of contradiction of numerals across different number
bases. but that wouldn't invalidate Unicornian Math, it would
merely make it logically paradoxical in relation to non-Unicornian
equations (of which there are none, BTW, because when um = 0,
everything works as you would normally expect it to). but i
haven't yet come up with an example which yields the hunched
paradox.
like i said, it's just a vague untested hunch at this point.
of course, allowing for "um" to have different values depending
on whether it's being applied to an Odd number or an Even number
presents some interesting possibilities, but it still doesn't
invalidate Unicornian Math, it merely enhances its flexibility.
however, it may make Unicornian Logic a bit more challenging.
but all it does is require more requisite assumptions to be
able to determine which unequal um values are at work in the
um relationship as it is unequally applied to Odd and Even
numbers respectively.
actually, allowing for such enhancement (unequal values of um
applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively) pretty much makes
all equations True, i think. which is pretty interesting, albeit
somewhat unnerving. no. i must be wrong about that part.
nevertheless, for each configuration of um, there is an
inexorable mathemmatical relationship.
normally, um equals some static value which is applied to
both Odd and Even numbers (albeit added to Even, subtracted
from Odd). but if we are going to allow unequal ums to
be applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively, let's
explore what happens:
IF um = 1 for Even numbers
AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
THEN
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 =
hey. guess what? the use of the unequal value of the
um odd/even thinger is totally consistent and does NOT
screw with the Unicornian Logic at all. why? because:
IF um = 1 for Even numbers
AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
because if you do the Unicornian Math:
2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 6 = 2, which is False.
so there's no problem with the unequal values applied to the
um odd/even respecively thinger. at least i don't think so.
to further demonstrate the Unicornian relationship thinger,
this is the Unicornian condition we normally observe:
IF um = 0 for Even numbers
AND um = 0 for Odd numbers
THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
because if you do the Unicornian Math:
2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 4 = 6, which is False.
HOWEVER!
IF um = 0.5 for Even numbers
AND um = 0.5 for Odd numbers
THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is True.
because if you do the Unicornian Math:
2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 5 = 5, which is True.
get it?
> >i'll have to explore the possibilities a bit further.
> >
> >right now, it's just a vague untested hunch.
i still haven't taken the time to explore any possible
Unicornian paradoxical contradictions across other number
bases, but my intuition NOW tells me that my vague hunch
was wrong.
because when um = 0, everything's cool. change the value
of um and everything shifts accordingly. totally consistently
and 100% logically. so i don't think there would ever be
contrary numerical examples. but that's just a hunch.
you're free to try to prove otherwise, of course.
> >in the meantime...
> >
> >pay up, Zen.
>
> Nope.
hey, it's your honor, not mine.
> >> -$Zero... http://www.paypal.com... K?...
>
> No. I don't have an account.
i don't think you need one. just use a credit card.
BTW: because of today's new Unicornian discovery of
possible unequal values of um (as they are applied to
Odd and Even numbers respectively), the previous equation
discussed above now has been exposed as yet another in
a long historic line of culturally crippled instances
of Logic.
to wit, before we considered the unequal values of um expansion:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
would have been False (as i first determined earlier above)
because ther would be no EQUAL values of um which could be
applied to both the Odd and Even elements of the summing
operations to make all the statements True.
but now! due to our new Unicornian discovery of the
non-contradictional workability of unequal values of um:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
...is "Unable to Determine" because there are now not
enough requisite assumptions to make any conclusion.
we'd need at least one more:
IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
...would be "False" because "5 = 1.1" is False
BUT!
IF 2+2 = 1.1, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
...would be "True" because:
IF 2+2 = 1.1
THEN the Even um = -1.45
IF 3+3 = 1.1
THEN the Odd um = 2.45
so naturaully, 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 1.1 = 1.1, and is True.
and don't forget the Unicornian Method:
Even ums are added. Odd ums are subtracted.
SHTW?
cha' ching! $29 - $1 = $28. pay up, Zen.
and like i said, the "3 > 2" assumption is just there for show.
(to avoid wasting time with nonsense arguments that claim that
there's a 3 Smith and a 3 Jones -- let alone that 3 Smith could
be anything other than one magnitude greater than 2 Smith)
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndThemainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
[Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>Kentucky Derby?
do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
not make any true statements about Zen's special
little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
-- $Zero...
"Let X... equal... X."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Let X = X"; from the
album: "Big Science" (1982)]
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
"Only two things are infinite...
the universe... and human stupidity...
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
"gorgeous doesn't care
what anyone else is doing.
gorgeous trumps everything"
-- Willem Dafoe
[narrating a car commercial (2005)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
0zju-05
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
[...]
> >> It's just "no", man. If you need to ask you probably can't
> >> understand the answer, even though it's fucking elementary.
> >
> >yeah. look who's talking about being whooshed by "the elementary."
>
> Whatever. Look who needs to ask whether to hyphenate "foolishly
> proud".
my saving grace is that i'm not too foolishly proud to admit
my mistakes nor my ignorance, whether they're elementary or
otherwise. HTH.
[...]
> >> >> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
> >> >> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
> >> >>
> >> >> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
> >> >
> >> >yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes.
>
> No.
>
> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
>
> Note the caveat I provide.
irrelevant. goto: BINGO.
> >EOFS. or pay up double on the brown-haired Beth thinger.
>
> No. The same rules apply to that as to this.
BINGO! pay up.
> >> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
> >> >
> >> >and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes. the Unicornian Mathematical relationship.
>
> LOL. That's far too big of a stretch for the word "valid".
"All brown-haired woman have bad tempers"
BINGO!
> >which also gives us this wonderful little statement:
> >
> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
>
> Is it?
mathematically, at the very least.
unless Odd and Even are somehow substitutable maybe?
i doubt it. but it's worth a thought.
> >Unicornian Math is valid. it's known.
> >
> >just like Base Three math is known.
>
> Hmmm. Actually, no.
actually yes.
but i'll go you one better.
it's valid whether it's known or not. just like Base Three.
(which is no more than a culturally crippled way to count
in one particular dimension -- the dimension of unenhanced
whole numbers, etc.)
OTOH, Unicornian Mathematics counts in a dimension which alters
the value of combining numbers depending on whether they are
Odd or Even. and when um = 0, it intersects the universe where
number combining treats Odd and Even numbers equally.
the same universe that you are stuck in, for some reason.
> >i know it. you know it. Ashby knows it. Goalpost knows it.
> >
> >Josh knows it. even Raypert Pupkin knows it. EOFS. valid math.
> >
> >important reminder: no one has disproved it.
>
> No one needs to. It's wrong in its face.
then it should be child's play to prove it thusly, no?
> >that's science, baby. deal with it.
> >
> >> >as i've shown you in previous posts.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes. the inexorable odd and even nature of "UM".
> >
> >and how it behaves in mathematical equations.
> >
> >it's 100% consistent. just like Base three, etc.
>
> I'm afraid it is not. No system can be. Shall we do that one next?
give it your best shot, loserboy.
> >> >you don't like it, you "can't" figure out why it works,
> >> >you "can't" translate the "THEN" statement into either
> >> >[a], [b], [c], or [d]... well... if you "can't" or "won't",
> >> >you gotta throw in the towel on your claim to being logical
> >> >and rational. it's inexorable.
> >>
> >> Logic is inexorable. You can't bargain with it. So no.
> >
> >the Unicornian Mathematical relationship exists AND works.
> >
> >it's inexorably consistent. there's no bargaining with it.
>
> I am looking forward to spanking you ferociously on that score.
> Just say the word.
the word.
> >so yes.
> >
> >> >get it?
> >> >
> >> >your refusal to pick either [a], [b], [c], or [d]
> >> >(and then be able to explain why and how) means i win.
> >>
> >> I didn't refuse to pick one because I couldn't.
> >
> >tedious.
>
> No.
yikes.
[...]
> >> >> >i'm afraid that merely substituting variables won't cut it.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it won't. You cannot give p and not p.
> >> >
> >> >i didn't. i gave workable assumptions. no contradictions.
> >>
> >> No. You are not allowed to redefine the operators.
> >> They are external to the propositions.
> >
> >you'll now show me how i've "illegally" redefined "the operators".
>
> The operators are external to the propositions. They express the
> operations of the logic and consequently, to remain logical, your
> arguments cannot redefine them.
my arguments don't "redefine" the operators.
my "arguments" expand their functionality into other dimensions.
Unicornian Dimensions.
one of which is the dimension you're stuck in. when um = 0.
> You could *explicitly* redefine ">" to be a sign of equality,
> but you didn't do so.
i wouldn't want to. it would be dumb as shit to do so.
> >in fact, you'll show me how i've redefined "the operators" at all.
>
> If you have not, you have assumed p and not-p.
nope.
> You choose which error in construction of your logic you made.
none. try again.
> >good luck, BPS-boy.
> >
> >because i haven't "redefined" anything at all.
> >
> > + - = > <
> >
> >are all in tact. prove otherwise. IOW: cite. or pay up.
>
> What am I required to cite?
because you're claiming i "redefined" the operators.
i did not do so. otherwise, cite your source proving i did.
> >it's exactly like "the operators" below are fully intact:
> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >
> > a] True
>
> Yes. Well done. This is perfectly sound logically.
only because it's conforming to Base 3 mathematics.
> You have in fact proven my case regarding the 3s and 2s,
> and rather neatly. Thanks.
you're talking out of your ass, now.
what i've proven is that logical context is everything.
i've never disputed that 3s and 2s mean anything other
than what they've always meant. you were the one doing
that, remember? Mrs 3 Smith and Mrs. 3 Jones.
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> >
> >
> >anyone who knows Base Three will choose: [a] True.
> >
> >if you don't know Base Three, using your flawed logic,
> >you'd choose "True" for the wrong reason.
>
> You don't need to know base three. The logic is sound regardless.
it's only logically sound because of the dynamics of Base 3
Mathematics and how the numerals conform to that system of
quantity reckoning.
show otherwise and i'll think you a genius.
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
0 = Z
1 = A
2 = B
10 = J
11 = K
20 = T
IF Z + A = A
AND A + A = B
AND J + A = K
AND K + B = T
THEN A + B = J is:
a] True?
have fun extrapolating and explaining that baby, genius.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
[...]
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
the interest balance _alone_ on all my borrowed peaches
is getting a little ridiculous.
a creative genius has gotta eat, ya know?
[Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>Kentucky Derby?
do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
not make any true statements about Zen's special
little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
-- $Zero...
"Let X... equal... X."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Let X = X"; from the
album: "Big Science" (1982)]
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
"Only two things are infinite...
the universe... and human stupidity...
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
"gorgeous doesn't care
what anyone else is doing.
gorgeous trumps everything"
-- Willem Dafoe
[narrating a car commercial (2005)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/a2705e7e942a5b8a/c3c9f955a53dc0a1#c3c9f955a53dc0a1
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-06 -------------------------------
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>"Zero" said:
>> >Zero wrote:
>> >> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>> >>
>> >> no. False.
>
>nope. Unable to determine.
>
True.
>> >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
>> >
>> >Unable to determine.
>>
>> True.
>
>nope. Unable to Determine.
Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
>
>> >because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
>> >equal anything.
>>
>> No. With those two assumptions, any conclusion is true.
>
>well, yes and no (this will make more sense by the end of post)
No. The correct answer is yes. There is no "no" about it.
>
>
>> No. With those two assumptions, any conclusion is true.
>
>which is exactly why it's "Unable to Determine".
No. It's exactly why the answer is true.
>
>for instance, in presently known Uncicornian Math:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
TRUE.
>
>would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
>to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
>value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
>or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
>at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
I wish I knew what "um" was supposed to be.
>so anyway, you're claiming it's "True" because you're incorrectly
>insisting that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is intriniscally False
Which it is.
>because you're wrongly assuming that it's a contradiction,
Which it is.
>therefore you're claiming that any conclusion you make in
>any subsequent "THEN" statement would yield a "True".
Which it would.
>
>but your False assumption that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is contradictory therefore False
Which it is.
>
>...has therefore given you the wrong answer.
No, it hasn't.
>
>it's actually "Unable to Determine" because you can't suss out
>from just those two assumptions what the value of "um" is.
If you're referring to the greater than sign, its "value" is "greater
than". You cannot redefine the operators unless you explicitly do so.
That's a rule. We're playing logic, not make up any demented reason
not to pay Dr Zen the money you owe him that you can.
>
>SHTW?
>
>do i really need to tell you again how Unicornian Math works?
Do I need to refer you to the original contention, which was in logic,
not the fevered workings of your brain?
>are you insisting upon it?
>
>ok. but i'm only giving you some of the explanation, because
>i think you're being willfully obtuse just because you think
>it proves some sort of point, but it doesn't.
>
>Unicornian Math works. every time. it doesn't matter how
>many people understand it at this (or any other) juncture.
>
>just like Base Three works -- every time -- regardless of
>how many people understand its underlying principles.
No. Base 3 works because it is mathematics.
>
>Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
>Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
Too boring. You owe me $29 in this dimension, so pay up.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> It's just "no", man. If you need to ask you probably can't
>> >> understand the answer, even though it's fucking elementary.
>> >
>> >yeah. look who's talking about being whooshed by "the elementary."
>>
>> Whatever. Look who needs to ask whether to hyphenate "foolishly
>> proud".
>
>my saving grace is that i'm not too foolishly proud to admit
>my mistakes nor my ignorance, whether they're elementary or
>otherwise. HTH.
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >> >remember to explain how you can avoid the given that "3 > 2"
>> >> >> >while going ahead and making any other conclusions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You cannot give 3>2 if you have given 3+3=2+2.
>> >> >
>> >> >yes, i can. it's part of the assumptions. duh.
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >yes.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
>>
>> Note the caveat I provide.
>
>irrelevant. goto: BINGO.
>
If it wasn't relevant, why would I bother giving it?
>
>> >EOFS. or pay up double on the brown-haired Beth thinger.
>>
>> No. The same rules apply to that as to this.
>
>BINGO! pay up.
No, sorry. It's because the same rules apply that you lost.
>
>
>> >> > "They are not false if you give them as assumptions"
>> >> >
>> >> >and there actually IS a valid mathematical relationship there.
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >yes. the Unicornian Mathematical relationship.
>>
>> LOL. That's far too big of a stretch for the word "valid".
>
>
> "All brown-haired woman have bad tempers"
In the argument you gave, that was TRUE.
>BINGO!
>
>
>> >which also gives us this wonderful little statement:
>> >
>> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
>>
>> Is it?
>
>mathematically, at the very least.
You don't know much maths then.
Is infinity odd or even?
>
>unless Odd and Even are somehow substitutable maybe?
>
>i doubt it. but it's worth a thought.
>
>
>> >Unicornian Math is valid. it's known.
>> >
>> >just like Base Three math is known.
>>
>> Hmmm. Actually, no.
>
>actually yes.
Base 3 maths is just ordinary maths.
>but i'll go you one better.
>
>it's valid whether it's known or not. just like Base Three.
Yes. Base 3 is valid without needing to be substantiated. It just is
true.
>
>(which is no more than a culturally crippled way to count
>in one particular dimension -- the dimension of unenhanced
>whole numbers, etc.)
Which is the dimension we are working in, and in which you owe me $29.
That's twenty-nine dollars, not 29 in some other base.
>OTOH, Unicornian Mathematics counts
Yawn. Is that the time?
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
> >> >>
> >> >> no. False.
> >
> >nope. Unable to Determine.
>
> True.
tedious. Gawd.
anyway, nope. it's "Unable to Determine."
however, if you were to add the following assumption:
2 + 2 = -87
_THEN_ 3 + 3 = 97 would be TRUE (assuming 2 + 2 = 3 + 3)
then, and only then, would 3 + 3 = 97 (because um = -45.5)
welcome to Unicornia.
> >> >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
> >> >
> >> >Unable to determine.
> >>
> >> True.
> >
> >nope. Unable to Determine.
>
> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
and i will show you that clearly below.
> >for instance, in presently known Uncicornian Math:
> >
> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> TRUE.
>
> >would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
> >to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
> >value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
> >or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
> >at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
>
> I wish I knew what "um" was supposed to be.
i wish you did too.
i believe you do know it, you're just being a bitchy BPSer.
a foolishly proud flat-earther.
> I wish I knew what "um" was supposed to be.
it's the Unicornian Mathematical relationship thinger which makes:
2 + 2 = 3 + 3
able to translate into "True" instead of "False."
here, see if you can use your so called logical mind to grok
the inexorable mathematical relationship/pattern:
IF "um" = 0, THEN 2 + 2 = 4, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 0, THEN 3 + 3 = 6, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 0.5, THEN 2 + 2 = 5, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 0.5, THEN 3 + 3 = 5, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 1, THEN 2 + 2 = 6, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 1, THEN 3 + 3 = 4, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 1.5, THEN 2 + 2 = 7, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 1.5, THEN 3 + 3 = 3, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 2, THEN 2 + 2 = 8, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 2, THEN 3 + 3 = 2, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 2.5, THEN 2 + 2 = 9, AND 2 + 3 = 5
IF "um" = 2.5, THEN 3 + 3 = 1, AND 2 + 3 = 5
now, if you're truly logical, you'll figure out what um is.
and how it works. inexorably. you'll see the relationship.
if you can't see it on your own, look again, and pay close
attention to the Odd and Even nature of each element in
each equation.
got it yet? or do you need additional handholding?
[...]
> >it's actually "Unable to Determine" because you can't suss out
> >from just those two assumptions what the value of "um" is.
>
> If you're referring to the greater than sign, its "value" is
> "greater than". You cannot redefine the operators unless you
> explicitly do so.
i'm not refering to the "greater than" sign. nor any other
of the "operators." i'm refering to the intrinsic mathematical
relationships in each equation and how they relate across each
all the given assumptions.
IF
see that? it's an If. If. IF! remember what "IF" means?
IF 2 + 2 = 5
see that? _if_ two plus two equals five. how can that be?
IF 2 + 2 = 5 AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
see that? if two plus two equals five AND two plus two equals
three plus three, how can that be?
IF 2 + 2 = 5 AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2 THEN 3 + 3 = 5 is
see that?
IF two plus two equals five
AND two plus two equals three plus three
well, how can that be?
and IF that's so, (which it is) THEN...
does three plus three logically equal five?
the answer is YES.
YES, _if_ two plus two equals five AND two plus two
equals three plus three, THEN three plus three DOES
logically equal five. indeed.
the reason why is the Unicornian Relationship.
um = 0.5
it's based on the way that you combine numbers together
and considers whether said numbers are Odd or Even.
EOFS.
> That's a rule.
yes. Unicornian Mathematics is a rule. it's logical.
> We're playing logic, not make up any demented reason
> not to pay Dr Zen the money you owe him that you can.
FOUITN
eat a peach. you need more energy, ironically enough.
> >SHTW?
> >
> >do i really need to tell you again how Unicornian Math works?
>
> Do I need to refer you to the original contention, which was
> in logic, not the fevered workings of your brain?
do i need to remind you that the world is not flat anymore?
Gawd.
and that it actually goes around the sun, not the other way around?
> >are you insisting upon it?
> >
> >ok. but i'm only giving you some of the explanation, because
> >i think you're being willfully obtuse just because you think
> >it proves some sort of point, but it doesn't.
> >
> >Unicornian Math works. every time. it doesn't matter how
> >many people understand it at this (or any other) juncture.
> >
> >just like Base Three works -- every time -- regardless of
> >how many people understand its underlying principles.
>
> No. Base 3 works because it is mathematics.
i notice you predictably backed out of giving any "logically sound"
explanation of Base 3 mathematics. here, i'll unsip it so that you
can give it another try:
================================================
[moi, then you, then moi]
> >anyone who knows Base Three will choose: [a] True.
> >
> >if you don't know Base Three, using your flawed logic,
> >you'd choose "True" for the wrong reason.
>
> You don't need to know base three. The logic is sound regardless.
it's only "logically sound" because of the dynamics of Base 3
Mathematics and how the numerals conform to that system of
quantity reckoning.
show otherwise and i'll think you a genius.
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
0 = Z
1 = A
2 = B
10 = J
11 = K
20 = T
IF Z + A = A
AND A + A = B
AND J + A = K
AND K + B = T
THEN A + B = J is:
a] True?
have fun extrapolating and explaining that baby, genius.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
================================================
"You don't need to know base three.
The logic is sound regardless."
show us. go ahead, genius.
anyone wanna bet whether Zen will explain the "logically sound"
nature of Base 3 maths? LOL.
> >Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
> >Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
>
> Too boring. You owe me $29 in this dimension, so pay up.
ahhhh... the inevitable "too boring" bail out. delicious.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
0zju-07
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> no. False.
>> >
>> >nope. Unable to Determine.
>>
>> True.
>
>tedious. Gawd.
>
Yes, but true.
>anyway, nope. it's "Unable to Determine."
>
>however, if you were to add the following assumption:
>
> 2 + 2 = -87
>
>_THEN_ 3 + 3 = 97 would be TRUE (assuming 2 + 2 = 3 + 3)
You can add any assumption you like and it will be true.
>
>then, and only then, would 3 + 3 = 97 (because um = -45.5)
>
>welcome to Unicornia.
>
>
>> >> >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
>> >> >
>> >> >Unable to determine.
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >
>> >nope. Unable to Determine.
>>
>> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
>
>Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
>telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about your lying.
Go bore someone else.
<rest hosed>
Dr Zen
The wine is cheap but fruity. So am I.
Come on over.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
> >
> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
>
> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about your lying.
what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
> Go bore someone else.
translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
> <rest hosed>
translation: "Snipped rest unread"
obligatory unsnip (this makes twice now, whoa):
=============== Unsnip # 2 =====================
================================================
> No. Base 3 works because it is mathematics.
i notice you predictably backed out of giving any "logically sound"
explanation of Base 3 mathematics. here, i'll unsnip it so that you
can give it another try:
=============== Unsnip # 1 =====================
a] True?
cha' ching.
=============== end Unsnip # 1 =================
"You don't need to know base three.
The logic is sound regardless."
show us. go ahead, genius.
anyone wanna bet whether Zen will explain the "logically sound"
nature of Base 3 maths? LOL.
> >Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
> >Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
>
> Too boring. You owe me $29 in this dimension, so pay up.
ahhhh... the inevitable "too boring" bail out. delicious.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 2 =================
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
pay up, Zen.
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
[Dr. Zen ironically inspires the discovery of
Unicornian Mathematics and Unicornian Logic]
">Do I really need to point out to you, Z, that I can
>equally assume a world in which unicorns contest the
>Kentucky Derby?
do you think [you] need to point that out to me, Zen?
yikes. do i need to point out to you that you could
not make any true statements about Zen's special
little unicorn world unless it really existed?"
-- $Zero...
"Let X... equal... X."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Let X = X"; from the
album: "Big Science" (1982)]
"Probability factor of one to one... we have normality,
I repeat we have normality. Anything you still can't
cope with is therefore your own problem."
-- Douglas Adams
"Only two things are infinite...
the universe... and human stupidity...
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
"gorgeous doesn't care
what anyone else is doing.
gorgeous trumps everything"
-- Willem Dafoe
[narrating a car commercial (2005)]
Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
http://tinyurl.com/dlman
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/a2705e7e942a5b8a/c3c9f955a53dc0a1#c3c9f955a53dc0a1
--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.
---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
The correct answer is: [a] True
(but only if you can explain it logically)
Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
------------------------------- 0zju-08 -------------------------------
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
>> >
>> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
>> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
>>
>> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about your lying.
>
>what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
>
I can't be bothered going over and over it. You said that if you were
adjudged wrong by a judge we both agreed on, you would pay. You were
and you refused to pay.
>> Go bore someone else.
>
>translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
>
>
>> <rest hosed>
>
>
>translation: "Snipped rest unread"
Quite.
>
>
>obligatory unsnip (this makes twice now, whoa):
<hose zeroshit>
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
> >> >
> >> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
> >> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
> >>
> >> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about your lying.
> >
> >what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
>
> I can't be bothered going over and over it.
translation: "I can't be bothered to even go over it once."
gee... pretty puzzling, huh?
> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by a judge we
> both agreed on, you would pay.
yep.
and you were so scared and lacking in logical confidence
that you never agreed to a third party judge. you wouldn't
even consider one. you went crying home to mommy.
> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by
> a judge we both agreed on, you would pay.
TRUE
> You were and you refused to pay.
FALSE
see, now _that's_ a lie.
look it over and get familiar with it. heh.
> >> Go bore someone else.
> >
> >translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
> >
> >> <rest hosed>
> >
> >translation: "Snipped the rest unread"
>
> Quite.
um... can i see a show of hands?
> >obligatory unsnip (this makes twice now, whoa):
>
> <hose zeroshit>
obligatory unsnip:
(THIS MAKES THREE TIMES NOW! -- yikes and whoa)
================================================
=============== Unsnip # 3 =====================
================================================
a] True?
cha' ching.
cha' ching.
================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 3 =================
================================================
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
[...]
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
0zju-09
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> >> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>> >> > Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
>> >> >
>> >> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
>> >> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
>> >>
>> >> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about your lying.
>> >
>> >what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
>>
>> I can't be bothered going over and over it.
>
>translation: "I can't be bothered to even go over it once."
>
See, you're lying again. I've been over it with you.
>gee... pretty puzzling, huh?
>
>
>> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by a judge we
>> both agreed on, you would pay.
>
>yep.
But that turned out to be a lie.
>
>and you were so scared and lacking in logical confidence
>that you never agreed to a third party judge. you wouldn't
>even consider one. you went crying home to mommy.
Another lie.
>
>
>> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by
>> a judge we both agreed on, you would pay.
>
>TRUE
>
>> You were and you refused to pay.
>
>FALSE
>
>see, now _that's_ a lie.
>
>look it over and get familiar with it. heh.
I've looked it over enough.
>
>
>> >> Go bore someone else.
>> >
>> >translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
>> >
>> >> <rest hosed>
>> >
>> >translation: "Snipped the rest unread"
>>
>> Quite.
>
>um... can i see a show of hands?
>
<hose dull nonsense>
Zero
> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
oh my. how embarrassing.
i've gone and made all sorts of silly errors again.
doesn't invalidate my main argument in any way whatsoever, but...
it sure makes me look dumb. oh well. corrections below.
> > >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
> > >>
> > >> no. False.
>
> nope. Unable to determine.
nope. back to False.
> > >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
> > >
> > >Unable to determine.
> >
> > True.
>
> nope. Unable to Determine.
nope. True. because 2+2 = 3+3 DOES define um = 0.5
that mental glitch then created all the subsequent errors below.
> > >because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
> > >equal anything.
nope. IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN um = 0.5
it can't equal anything else. so:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN 3 + 3 = 5 is TRUE (always)
(unless you use unequal ums for the Odds and Evens)
[...]
> for instance, in presently known Unicornian Math:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
> to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
> value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
> or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
> at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
this reasoning was flawed (but only in this particular example).
because i glossed over the 2+2 = 3+3 thinger thinking that it
applied to all possible values of um, but it only applies when
um = 0.5
duh. and double duh.
> so anyway, you're claiming it's "True" because you're
> incorrectly insisting that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is intriniscally False
>
> because you're wrongly assuming that it's a contradiction,
> therefore you're claiming that any conclusion you make in
> any subsequent "THEN" statement would yield a "True".
>
> but your False assumption that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is contradictory therefore False
>
> ...has therefore given you the wrong answer.
all that reasoning was perfectly fine. lucky moi.
> it's actually "Unable to Determine" because you can't suss out
> from just those two assumptions what the value of "um" is.
nope. True. because um = 0.5 by the very nature of 2+2 = 3+3
> SHTW?
>
> do i really need to tell you again how Unicornian Math works?
yikes.
> are you insisting upon it?
>
> ok. but i'm only giving you some of the explanation, because
> i think you're being willfully obtuse just because you think
> it proves some sort of point, but it doesn't.
>
> Unicornian Math works. every time. it doesn't matter how
> many people understand it at this (or any other) juncture.
even if its own discoverer is totally careless about explaining it.
> just like Base Three works -- every time -- regardless of
> how many people understand its underlying principles.
>
> Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
> Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
yep. the fricken' twilight zone, FFS.
> so i'll provide the partial explanation below. if you
> still want to claim ignorance of its fundamental Unicornian
> Mathematical properties, i'll explain more next post.
oh goodie.
> anyway, the most important thing about Unicornian Math is
> the inexorable intrinsic nature of Odd and Even numbers.
yep.
> one of the oldest discoveries of math itself was the
> existence of Odd and Even numbers -- which we've built
> quite a bit of math theory on since then. prime numbers
> for instance. Unicornian Math is just another discovery.
yep.
> > >i had mistakenly thought that you had defined um = 0.5
> > >(i didn't notice the absence of the requisite second
> > >defining assumption).
> > >
> > >however, everything works fine when it's there.
> > >
> > >like so:
> > >
> > > IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, THEN 3+3 = 5
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> > Yes.
>
> but only because there are enough assumptions to conclude that:
>
> um = 0.5
yes. but there were enough assumptions with just 2+2 = 3+3 as well.
duh. [slaps own forehead]
> not because 2+2 = 3+3 is contradictory, nor because you
> want to pretend that there's a "3 Jones" and a "3 Smith"
> which can magically be transformed to mean something
> other than their intrinsic numeric placeholder values.
> (regardless of which number base one uses).
>
> 3 is ALWAYS greater than 2. it's one of those fundamental
> assumptions we make about numeric placeholders. the only
> time that 3 is less than 2 is when it is preceded by a minus
> sign. like so:
>
> -3 < 2
>
> it's called language. give over, huh?
all perfectly fine. phew!
> > > IF 2+2 = 6, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 4
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> >
> > No. Unable to determine.
>
> no. it's True because um = 1
no. it's FALSE because:
IF um = 1 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 6 = 4 (FALSE)
yikes. what a careless idiot i am sometimes.
but that's why you love me, no?
> > > IF 2+2 = 7, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 3
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> > Unable to determine.
>
> no. it's True because um = 1.5
no. it's FALSE because:
IF um = 1.5 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 7 = 3 (FALSE)
[...snip a long trail of cumulative error...]
> > >you don't really need the "3 > 2".
> >
> > You definitely don't want the 3 > 2.
>
> it's a given. i only include it to save the time of
> explaining that numeric symbols cannot be substituted
> for X variables (well, they can, but they must maintain
> their fundamental placeholder relationships to eachother
> -- as well as their Odd/Evenness). get it?
>
> "Odd and Even are the binary nature of infinity"
>
> mathematically speaking, at the very least.
all True. phew!
> > >it's just there for those who would try to argue
> > >that the numerals don't represent their numeric
> > >values.
> >
> > What is the "numeric value" of 10?
>
> depends on the context. depends on the base you're using.
>
> unless there's reason to surmise otherwise, it's Base Ten.
>
> therefore, the default numeric value of 10 is equal to ten.
>
> culturally crippling in some cases, yes. but there it is.
yikes. no errors. imagine how grateful i am.
> > >[...]
> > >
> > >oops. i may have just figured out how to disprove
> > >this Unicornian thing. i'm not sure.
> > >
> > >or it might just be a potentially pardoxical glitch.
> >
> > You don't say. I expect some logic has intruded on your fantasy.
>
> see above. the only paradox that might exist is if we can find
> an example of contradiction of numerals across different number
> bases. but that wouldn't invalidate Unicornian Math, it would
> merely make it logically paradoxical in relation to non-Unicornian
> equations (of which there are none, BTW, because when um = 0,
> everything works as you would normally expect it to). but i
> haven't yet come up with an example which yields the hunched
> paradox.
>
> like i said, it's just a vague untested hunch at this point.
>
> of course, allowing for "um" to have different values depending
> on whether it's being applied to an Odd number or an Even number
> presents some interesting possibilities, but it still doesn't
> invalidate Unicornian Math, it merely enhances its flexibility.
>
> however, it may make Unicornian Logic a bit more challenging.
>
> but all it does is require more requisite assumptions to be
> able to determine which unequal um values are at work in the
> um relationship as it is unequally applied to Odd and Even
> numbers respectively.
all mostly sound.
> actually, allowing for such enhancement (unequal values of um
> applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively) pretty much makes
> all equations True, i think. which is pretty interesting, albeit
> somewhat unnerving. no. i must be wrong about that part.
yes. i was wrong about that part. hello?
> nevertheless, for each configuration of um, there is an
> inexorable mathemmatical relationship.
yep. why i missed it earlier above is beyond moi.
cue Rod Serling.
> normally, um equals some static value which is applied to
> both Odd and Even numbers (albeit added to Even, subtracted
> from Odd). but if we are going to allow unequal ums to
> be applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively, let's
> explore what happens:
>
> IF um = 1 for Even numbers
> AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
> THEN
>
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 =
>
>
> hey. guess what? the use of the unequal value of the
> um odd/even thinger is totally consistent and does NOT
> screw with the Unicornian Logic at all.
yes. i only wish i would've listened to my own flawless logic.
then i wouldn't have made the error earlier above which caused
all the other stupid which followed. until here, of course.
one can only wonder why Zen couldn't figure any of this out.
must be that he's so arrogant that he doesn't even consider
how arrogant he is.
>why? because:
>
> IF um = 1 for Even numbers
> AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 6 = 2, which is False.
>
> so there's no problem with the unequal values applied to the
> um odd/even respecively thinger. at least i don't think so.
yep. and it also applies to um when it's NOT using unequal
values for Odd and Even respectively. see my original error
which somehow lead me to think that something other than
um = 0.5 could apply to 2+2 = 3+3
> to further demonstrate the Unicornian relationship thinger,
> this is the Unicornian condition we normally observe:
>
> IF um = 0 for Even numbers
> AND um = 0 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 4 = 6, which is False.
>
>
> HOWEVER!
>
> IF um = 0.5 for Even numbers
> AND um = 0.5 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is True.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 5 = 5, which is True.
>
> get it?
yep.
> > >i'll have to explore the possibilities a bit further.
> > >
> > >right now, it's just a vague untested hunch.
>
> i still haven't taken the time to explore any possible
> Unicornian paradoxical contradictions across other number
> bases, but my intuition NOW tells me that my vague hunch
> was wrong.
>
> because when um = 0, everything's cool. change the value
> of um and everything shifts accordingly. totally consistently
> and 100% logically. so i don't think there would ever be
> contrary numerical examples. but that's just a hunch.
> you're free to try to prove otherwise, of course.
not perceptive enough to even try, i guess. especially since
Zen missed all the easily seen errors above. unless? could it
be that if he corrected them he'd be admitting to understanding
the Unicornian Method? hmmm...
> > >in the meantime... pay up, Zen.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> hey, it's your honor, not mine.
[...]
> BTW: because of today's new Unicornian discovery of
> possible unequal values of um (as they are applied to
> Odd and Even numbers respectively), the previous equation
> discussed above now has been exposed as yet another in
> a long historic line of culturally crippled instances
> of Logic.
>
> to wit, before we considered the unequal values of um expansion:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> would have been False (as i first determined earlier above)
> because ther would be no EQUAL values of um which could be
> applied to both the Odd and Even elements of the summing
> operations to make all the statements True.
>
> but now! due to our new Unicornian discovery of the
> non-contradictional workability of unequal values of um:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...is "Unable to Determine" because there are now not
> enough requisite assumptions to make any conclusion.
nope. it's FALSE because:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN 3+3 = 5 (NOT 1.1)
> we'd need at least one more:
>
> IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...would be "False" because "5 = 1.1" is False
duh. so how did i miss it just above? so careless.
> BUT!
>
> IF 2+2 = 1.1, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...would be "True" because:
>
> IF 2+2 = 1.1
>
> THEN the Even um = -1.45
>
> IF 3+3 = 1.1
>
> THEN the Odd um = 2.45
>
> so naturually, 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 1.1 = 1.1, and is True.
um... yes, that's actually True. but only because of the unequal
ums being applied to the Odd and Even numbers respectively.
whoa. this is pretty complex stuff.
> and don't forget the Unicornian Method:
>
> Even ums are added. Odd ums are subtracted.
>
> SHTW?
>
> cha' ching! $29 - $1 = $28. pay up, Zen.
yep.
> and like i said, the "3 > 2" assumption is just there for show.
yep.
> (to avoid wasting time with nonsense arguments that claim that
> there's a 3 Smith and a 3 Jones -- let alone that 3 Smith could
> be anything other than one magnitude greater than 2 Smith)
>
>
> -$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
> AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
> OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
> AndThemainUnicornianDiscovery:
>
> to wit:
>
> All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
> such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
> your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
> There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
> than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
> Double duh.
definitely. yikes.
0zju-10b
Zero
> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
oh my. how embarrassing.
i've gone and made all sorts of silly errors again.
doesn't invalidate my main argument in any way whatsoever, but...
it sure makes me look dumb. oh well. corrections below.
> > >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
> > >>
> > >> no. False.
>
> nope. Unable to determine.
nope. back to False.
> > >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
> > >
> > >Unable to determine.
> >
> > True.
>
> nope. Unable to Determine.
nope. True. because 2+2 = 3+3 DOES define um = 0.5
that mental glitch then created all the subsequent errors below.
> > >because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
> > >equal anything.
nope. IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN um = 0.5
it can't equal anything else. so:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN 3 + 3 = 5 is TRUE (always)
(unless you use unequal ums for the Odds and Evens)
[...]
> for instance, in presently known Unicornian Math:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
> to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
> value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
> or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
> at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
this reasoning was flawed (but only in this particular example).
because i glossed over the 2+2 = 3+3 thinger thinking that it
applied to all possible values of um, but it only applies when
um = 0.5
duh. and double duh.
> so anyway, you're claiming it's "True" because you're
> incorrectly insisting that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is intriniscally False
>
> because you're wrongly assuming that it's a contradiction,
> therefore you're claiming that any conclusion you make in
> any subsequent "THEN" statement would yield a "True".
>
> but your False assumption that:
>
> "IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2" is contradictory therefore False
>
> ...has therefore given you the wrong answer.
all that reasoning was perfectly fine. lucky moi.
> it's actually "Unable to Determine" because you can't suss out
> from just those two assumptions what the value of "um" is.
nope. True. because um = 0.5 by the very nature of 2+2 = 3+3
> SHTW?
>
> do i really need to tell you again how Unicornian Math works?
yikes.
> are you insisting upon it?
>
> ok. but i'm only giving you some of the explanation, because
> i think you're being willfully obtuse just because you think
> it proves some sort of point, but it doesn't.
>
> Unicornian Math works. every time. it doesn't matter how
> many people understand it at this (or any other) juncture.
even if its own discoverer is totally careless about explaining it.
> just like Base Three works -- every time -- regardless of
> how many people understand its underlying principles.
>
> Unicornian Math works in the exact same inexorable way that
> Base Three works, it merely does so in another dimension.
yep. the fricken' twilight zone, FFS.
> so i'll provide the partial explanation below. if you
> still want to claim ignorance of its fundamental Unicornian
> Mathematical properties, i'll explain more next post.
oh goodie.
> anyway, the most important thing about Unicornian Math is
> the inexorable intrinsic nature of Odd and Even numbers.
yep.
> one of the oldest discoveries of math itself was the
> existence of Odd and Even numbers -- which we've built
> quite a bit of math theory on since then. prime numbers
> for instance. Unicornian Math is just another discovery.
yep.
> > >i had mistakenly thought that you had defined um = 0.5
> > >(i didn't notice the absence of the requisite second
> > >defining assumption).
> > >
> > >however, everything works fine when it's there.
> > >
> > >like so:
> > >
> > > IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, THEN 3+3 = 5
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> > Yes.
>
> but only because there are enough assumptions to conclude that:
>
> um = 0.5
yes. but there were enough assumptions with just 2+2 = 3+3 as well.
duh. [slaps own forehead]
> not because 2+2 = 3+3 is contradictory, nor because you
> want to pretend that there's a "3 Jones" and a "3 Smith"
> which can magically be transformed to mean something
> other than their intrinsic numeric placeholder values.
> (regardless of which number base one uses).
>
> 3 is ALWAYS greater than 2. it's one of those fundamental
> assumptions we make about numeric placeholders. the only
> time that 3 is less than 2 is when it is preceded by a minus
> sign. like so:
>
> -3 < 2
>
> it's called language. give over, huh?
all perfectly fine. phew!
> > > IF 2+2 = 6, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 4
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> >
> > No. Unable to determine.
>
> no. it's True because um = 1
no. it's FALSE because:
IF um = 1 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 6 = 4 (FALSE)
yikes. what a careless idiot i am sometimes.
but that's why you love me, no?
> > > IF 2+2 = 7, AND 2+2 = 3+3 , THEN 3+3 = 3
> > >
> > > a] True
> >
> > Unable to determine.
>
> no. it's True because um = 1.5
no. it's FALSE because:
IF um = 1.5 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 7 = 3 (FALSE)
[...snip a long trail of cumulative error...]
> > >you don't really need the "3 > 2".
> >
> > You definitely don't want the 3 > 2.
>
> it's a given. i only include it to save the time of
> explaining that numeric symbols cannot be substituted
> for X variables (well, they can, but they must maintain
> their fundamental placeholder relationships to eachother
> -- as well as their Odd/Evenness). get it?
>
> "Odd and Even are the binary nature of infinity"
>
> mathematically speaking, at the very least.
all True. phew!
> > >it's just there for those who would try to argue
> > >that the numerals don't represent their numeric
> > >values.
> >
> > What is the "numeric value" of 10?
>
> depends on the context. depends on the base you're using.
>
> unless there's reason to surmise otherwise, it's Base Ten.
>
> therefore, the default numeric value of 10 is equal to ten.
>
> culturally crippling in some cases, yes. but there it is.
yikes. no errors. imagine how grateful i am.
> > >[...]
> > >
> > >oops. i may have just figured out how to disprove
> > >this Unicornian thing. i'm not sure.
> > >
> > >or it might just be a potentially pardoxical glitch.
> >
> > You don't say. I expect some logic has intruded on your fantasy.
>
> see above. the only paradox that might exist is if we can find
> an example of contradiction of numerals across different number
> bases. but that wouldn't invalidate Unicornian Math, it would
> merely make it logically paradoxical in relation to non-Unicornian
> equations (of which there are none, BTW, because when um = 0,
> everything works as you would normally expect it to). but i
> haven't yet come up with an example which yields the hunched
> paradox.
>
> like i said, it's just a vague untested hunch at this point.
>
> of course, allowing for "um" to have different values depending
> on whether it's being applied to an Odd number or an Even number
> presents some interesting possibilities, but it still doesn't
> invalidate Unicornian Math, it merely enhances its flexibility.
>
> however, it may make Unicornian Logic a bit more challenging.
>
> but all it does is require more requisite assumptions to be
> able to determine which unequal um values are at work in the
> um relationship as it is unequally applied to Odd and Even
> numbers respectively.
all mostly sound.
> actually, allowing for such enhancement (unequal values of um
> applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively) pretty much makes
> all equations True, i think. which is pretty interesting, albeit
> somewhat unnerving. no. i must be wrong about that part.
yes. i was wrong about that part. hello?
> nevertheless, for each configuration of um, there is an
> inexorable mathemmatical relationship.
yep. why i missed it earlier above is beyond moi.
cue Rod Serling.
> normally, um equals some static value which is applied to
> both Odd and Even numbers (albeit added to Even, subtracted
> from Odd). but if we are going to allow unequal ums to
> be applied to Odd and Even numbers respectively, let's
> explore what happens:
>
> IF um = 1 for Even numbers
> AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
> THEN
>
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 =
>
>
> hey. guess what? the use of the unequal value of the
> um odd/even thinger is totally consistent and does NOT
> screw with the Unicornian Logic at all.
yes. i only wish i would've listened to my own flawless logic.
then i wouldn't have made the error earlier above which caused
all the other stupid which followed. until here, of course.
one can only wonder why Zen couldn't figure any of this out.
must be that he's so arrogant that he doesn't even consider
how arrogant he is.
>why? because:
>
> IF um = 1 for Even numbers
> AND um = 2 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 6 = 2, which is False.
>
> so there's no problem with the unequal values applied to the
> um odd/even respecively thinger. at least i don't think so.
yep. and it also applies to um when it's NOT using unequal
values for Odd and Even respectively. see my original error
which somehow lead me to think that something other than
um = 0.5 could apply to 2+2 = 3+3
> to further demonstrate the Unicornian relationship thinger,
> this is the Unicornian condition we normally observe:
>
> IF um = 0 for Even numbers
> AND um = 0 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is False.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 4 = 6, which is False.
>
>
> HOWEVER!
>
> IF um = 0.5 for Even numbers
> AND um = 0.5 for Odd numbers
>
> THEN 2+2 = 3+3 is True.
>
> because if you do the Unicornian Math:
>
> 2+2 = 3+3 would translate to 5 = 5, which is True.
>
> get it?
yep.
> > >i'll have to explore the possibilities a bit further.
> > >
> > >right now, it's just a vague untested hunch.
>
> i still haven't taken the time to explore any possible
> Unicornian paradoxical contradictions across other number
> bases, but my intuition NOW tells me that my vague hunch
> was wrong.
>
> because when um = 0, everything's cool. change the value
> of um and everything shifts accordingly. totally consistently
> and 100% logically. so i don't think there would ever be
> contrary numerical examples. but that's just a hunch.
> you're free to try to prove otherwise, of course.
not perceptive enough to even try, i guess. especially since
Zen missed all the easily seen errors above. unless? could it
be that if he corrected them he'd be admitting to understanding
the Unicornian Method? hmmm...
> > >in the meantime... pay up, Zen.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> hey, it's your honor, not mine.
[...]
> BTW: because of today's new Unicornian discovery of
> possible unequal values of um (as they are applied to
> Odd and Even numbers respectively), the previous equation
> discussed above now has been exposed as yet another in
> a long historic line of culturally crippled instances
> of Logic.
>
> to wit, before we considered the unequal values of um expansion:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> would have been False (as i first determined earlier above)
> because ther would be no EQUAL values of um which could be
> applied to both the Odd and Even elements of the summing
> operations to make all the statements True.
>
> but now! due to our new Unicornian discovery of the
> non-contradictional workability of unequal values of um:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...is "Unable to Determine" because there are now not
> enough requisite assumptions to make any conclusion.
nope. it's FALSE because:
IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN 3+3 = 5 (NOT 1.1)
> we'd need at least one more:
>
> IF 2+2 = 5, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...would be "False" because "5 = 1.1" is False
duh. so how did i miss it just above? so careless.
> BUT!
>
> IF 2+2 = 1.1, AND 2+2 = 3+3, AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>
> ...would be "True" because:
>
> IF 2+2 = 1.1
>
> THEN the Even um = -1.45
>
> IF 3+3 = 1.1
>
> THEN the Odd um = 2.45
>
> so naturually, 2+2 = 3+3 translates to 1.1 = 1.1, and is True.
um... yes, that's actually True. but only because of the unequal
ums being applied to the Odd and Even numbers respectively.
whoa. this is pretty complex stuff.
> and don't forget the Unicornian Method:
>
> Even ums are added. Odd ums are subtracted.
>
> SHTW?
>
> cha' ching! $29 - $1 = $28. pay up, Zen.
yep.
> and like i said, the "3 > 2" assumption is just there for show.
yep.
> (to avoid wasting time with nonsense arguments that claim that
> there's a 3 Smith and a 3 Jones -- let alone that 3 Smith could
> be anything other than one magnitude greater than 2 Smith)
>
>
> -$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
> AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
> OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
> AndThemainUnicornianDiscovery:
>
> to wit:
>
> All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
> such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
> your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
> There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
> than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
> Double duh.
definitely. yikes.
0zju-10
Zero
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
> >> >> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
> >> >> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
> >> >>
> >> >> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about
> >> >> your lying.
> >> >
> >> >what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
> >>
> >> I can't be bothered going over and over it.
> >
> >translation: "I can't be bothered to even go over it once."
>
> See, you're lying again. I've been over it with you.
what lie have you already been "over with" with moi?
you've called me a liar before, yes, but you never made one
bit of sense about it. not that i can recall. you usually
call me a liar when you're in the middle of losing some
sort of argument with me. it's your SOP MO.
> >gee... pretty puzzling, huh?
> >
> >> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by a judge
> >> we both agreed on, you would pay.
> >
> >yep.
>
> But that turned out to be a lie.
nope. you never agreed to a third-aparty judge, remember?
if so, please tell us who it was. duh.
Gawd. how shameless of a liar are you?
> >and you were so scared and lacking in logical confidence
> >that you never agreed to a third party judge. you wouldn't
> >even consider one. you went crying home to mommy.
>
> Another lie.
there's not one lie there. otherwise, cite.
> >> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by
> >> a judge we both agreed on, you would pay.
> >
> >TRUE
> >
> >> You were and you refused to pay.
> >
> >FALSE
> >
> >see, now _that's_ a lie.
> >
> >look it over and get familiar with it. heh.
>
> I've looked it over enough.
so, who was the third party judge and what was their judgement?
cite. liar.
> >> >> Go bore someone else.
> >> >
> >> >translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
> >> >
> >> >> <rest hosed>
> >> >
> >> >translation: "Snipped the rest unread"
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >
> >um... can i see a show of hands?
> >
>
> <hose dull nonsense>
yeah, right. the fact that you claim that Base Three math
is "logically sound" all on its own and no one need know
its principles in order to logically figure out a math
puzzle using it -- but when you're challenged to prove
your utter nonsense, you snip the request FOUR times and
call it "boring."
heh. but you know and i know what the truth is.
as does anyone else with the least bit of logic and reason.
you cannot show that Base Three math is "logically sound"
all on its own without enumerating the principles behind it.
duh.
and if you did so, you'd end up validating Unicornian Math.
duh.
"boring". uh huh. "dull".
translation: "I can't explain explain the sound logic of
Base Three mathematics without contradicting myself wildly."
look, i realize that my converting the Base Three numbers
into variables has totally blown you're mind because it
shows how culturally crippled your logic is, but you could
at least have the guts and honor to either admit it OR
foolishly attempt to prove me wrong.
have at it:
================================================
================================================
=============== Unsnip # 4 =====================
================================================
a] True?
cha' ching.
cha' ching.
================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 4 =================
================================================
================================================
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
[...]
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
0zju-11
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Zero wrote:
>
>> Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>oh my. how embarrassing.
>
>i've gone and made all sorts of silly errors again.
>
>doesn't invalidate my main argument in any way whatsoever, but...
>
>it sure makes me look dumb. oh well. corrections below.
>
>
>> > >> > IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 97.
>> > >>
>> > >> no. False.
>>
>> nope. Unable to determine.
>
>nope. back to False.
>
It's still true.
>> > >> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 5
>> > >
>> > >Unable to determine.
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> nope. Unable to Determine.
>
>nope. True. because 2+2 = 3+3 DOES define um = 0.5
I wish I knew what "um" was. If you had defined it, I suppose I would
know, but you didn't and I don't.
>
>that mental glitch then created all the subsequent errors below.
>
>
>> > >because with only those two assumptions, "um" could
>> > >equal anything.
>
>nope. IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN um = 0.5
That's impossible to determine.
>it can't equal anything else. so:
>
> IF 2+2 = 3+3 THEN 3 + 3 = 5 is TRUE (always)
That's impossible to determine.
>
>
>(unless you use unequal ums for the Odds and Evens)
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> for instance, in presently known Unicornian Math:
>>
>> IF 2+2 = 3+3 AND 3 > 2, THEN 3+3 = 1.1
>>
>> would be "False" because there's nothing that "um" could equal
>> to make it "True" (unless we allow that "um" can have a different
>> value depending on whether it's being applied to an Odd number
>> or an Even number -- but I don't think you want to go there
>> at this point -- you've got too much on your plate as it is)
>
>this reasoning was flawed (but only in this particular example).
>because i glossed over the 2+2 = 3+3 thinger thinking that it
>applied to all possible values of um, but it only applies when
>um = 0.5
>
I realise that I have walked in on a private conversation.
Ivor Longhorn
said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> said:
>
>> >> >> >> Sorry no. True. You need to do some elementary logic.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Zen, if you could do elementary logic, you wouldn't keep
>> >> >> >telling me how flat the earth is. get it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I feel less aggrieved about your cheating than I do about
>> >> >> your lying.
>> >> >
>> >> >what have i lied about? totally desperate. yikes.
>> >>
>> >> I can't be bothered going over and over it.
>> >
>> >translation: "I can't be bothered to even go over it once."
>>
>> See, you're lying again. I've been over it with you.
>
>what lie have you already been "over with" with moi?
>
>you've called me a liar before, yes, but you never made one
>bit of sense about it. not that i can recall. you usually
>call me a liar when you're in the middle of losing some
>sort of argument with me. it's your SOP MO.
>
Hardly.
>
>> >gee... pretty puzzling, huh?
>> >
>> >> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by a judge
>> >> we both agreed on, you would pay.
>> >
>> >yep.
>>
>> But that turned out to be a lie.
>
>nope. you never agreed to a third-aparty judge, remember?
>
>if so, please tell us who it was. duh.
>
>Gawd. how shameless of a liar are you?
The evidence has disappeared into the ether. You're quite safe to lie
about it.
>
>> >and you were so scared and lacking in logical confidence
>> >that you never agreed to a third party judge. you wouldn't
>> >even consider one. you went crying home to mommy.
>>
>> Another lie.
>
>there's not one lie there. otherwise, cite.
>
>
>> >> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by
>> >> a judge we both agreed on, you would pay.
>> >
>> >TRUE
>> >
>> >> You were and you refused to pay.
>> >
>> >FALSE
>> >
>> >see, now _that's_ a lie.
>> >
>> >look it over and get familiar with it. heh.
>>
>> I've looked it over enough.
>
>so, who was the third party judge and what was their judgement?
>
>cite. liar.
Cite? You know the evidence is no longer there.
>
>
>> >> >> Go bore someone else.
>> >> >
>> >> >translation: "I'm too bored to respond"
>> >> >
>> >> >> <rest hosed>
>> >> >
>> >> >translation: "Snipped the rest unread"
>> >>
>> >> Quite.
>> >
>> >um... can i see a show of hands?
>> >
>>
>> <hose dull nonsense>
>
>yeah, right. the fact that you claim that Base Three math
>is "logically sound" all on its own and no one need know
>its principles in order to logically figure out a math
>puzzle using it -- but when you're challenged to prove
>your utter nonsense, you snip the request FOUR times and
>call it "boring."
>
IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".
>heh. but you know and i know what the truth is.
Well, I do.
>
>as does anyone else with the least bit of logic and reason.
>
>you cannot show that Base Three math is "logically sound"
>all on its own without enumerating the principles behind it.
What the blue blazes are you talking about? "Enumerating the
principles" behind mathematics took Russell years and a thousand
pages. But you do not need to know anything about Base 3 to see that
the argument given above is sound.
IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 2 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
True or false?
>
>duh.
>
>and if you did so, you'd end up validating Unicornian Math.
>
>duh.
How do you "validate" mathematics? Well, you do so with logic. Funny
that.
>
>"boring". uh huh. "dull".
>
>translation: "I can't explain explain the sound logic of
>Base Three mathematics without contradicting myself wildly."
I just did. You don't *explain* logic, you halfwit. It just is.
>
>look, i realize that my converting the Base Three numbers
>into variables
Variables?
Is this an assumption? You haven't said so.
>
> IF Z + A = A
>
> AND A + A = B
> AND J + A = K
> AND K + B = T
>
> THEN A + B = J is:
Proving my original point, idiot.
Josh Hill
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Towse <se...@towse.com> said:
>>
>>>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyone want to put five bucks in a pool on who Bob Woodward's Plame
>>>>source is? My fiver (US, of course, not the Monopoly money here) on
>>>>Cheney.
>>>>
>>>>Fingers crossed. If it's Cheney, Fitz will take him down.
>>>
>>>Cheney is too clever to talk with Woodward and spill anything vaguely
>>>resembling beans. "Woodward? You'd trust Woodward?"
>>
>> They all thought it would never come out. Cheney's not that clever. He
>> lets his juice rise sometimes.
>
>But Woodward?
>
>>>Scooter was warned off.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
>He was probably specifically told not to talk about Plame with Woodward.
>
>If you were hatching this plot, wouldn't you divvy up who spills the
>beans with whom? You wouldn't want four different people telling the
>same reporter about Plame. The reporter might think there was something
>smoky going on.
>
>>>Did you know that Woodward interviewed the Prez =multiple =times for
>>>PLAN OF ATTACK?
>>
>> Yes, I did. Are you putting your five on the Preznit?
>
>I don't think Woodward interviewed the Prez one-on-one. I think there
>was one or more others in the room listening in and, no, I am not
>putting five on the Preznit. He above all others would not have peeped.
>I just thought it was interesting how the muckraker of yesteryear got so
>cozy with the White House for his latest book.
--
Josh
"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours
involved with foreign policy. I am who I am." - George W. Bush
Zero
>The evidence has disappeared into the ether.
>You're quite safe to lie about it.
[...snip lying nonsense...]
um... Zen, _who_ did you name to be our third-party Judge?
did they "disappear into the ether"? cite. duh.
LOL. Gawd. how utterly desperate.
BTW: i have all those haloscan comments archived.
sorry, pal. nice try.
>IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
>
>Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".
Gawd. aftter five tries (and four cowardly snips)
you finally came up with some pure bullshit way to
try to move the goalposts. but it doesn't work.
just ask Goalpost.
>IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
oh goodie, in your fevered attempts to find some sort of
goalpost to divert attention away from your total illogic,
you came up with a way to use logical substitution on a
particular Base Three set of statements. whoa. how clever.
>IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
IF A + A = B, AND A + B = C, THEN A + A + A = C
[clap clap clap]
>Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".
not in that example, no. but that's not what we were
discussing, now was it? of course not.
here, let me show you precisely why your position is not
logically sound.
==================== unsnip #X ======================
[moi, then you, then moi]
> >anyone who knows Base Three will choose: [a] True.
> >
> >if you don't know Base Three, using your flawed logic,
> >you'd choose "True" for the wrong reason.
>
> You don't need to know base three. The logic is sound regardless.
it's only "logically sound" because of the dynamics of
Base Three Mathematics and how the numerals conform to
that system of quantity reckoning.
show otherwise and i'll think you a genius.
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
================== end unsnip #X ======================
you're trying to claim that it is "logically sound" because
even if you didn't know Base Three Mathematics, you'd choose
TRUE (because you'd think that the premise was FALSE due to
the "11 + 2 = 20" thinger). you're perfectly happy with that
because, as you say, the "logic" is still "sound" (because you
still choose TRUE -- even if you didn't really know why).
who cares if the person knows WHY they got the logically
right answer, so long as they do, right?
wrong.
why? check this out:
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
the answer here is [b] False. but your logic would yield [c].
or maybe even [a]? you tell me, illogic-boy.
note that, in this case, the THEN statement is _not_ TRUE
in Base Three Mathematics -- so the person who thinks that
the "11 + 2 = 20" premise is False (therefore making ANY
conclusion True) would choose True instead of False.
and they'd be wrong.
or, they'd use logical substitution and choose "Unable to Determine"
and they'd STILL be wrong.
which means that Base Three mathematics is not "logically sound"
unless the person analyzing the question knows how Base Three
mathematics works (and recognizes that it is being employed in
the question).
so you see, Dr. Zen, unless you know Base Three Math, and how it
specifically works, you cannot come up with the right answer.
get it?
now, pay up.
so no, Base Three Math is NOT "logically sound" all on its
own (well, it is, but its pointless that way). it needs
to be known by the person considering the problem otherwise
they'll get the wrong answer.
especially if they convert the original question into variables:
0 = Z
1 = A
2 = B
10 = J
11 = K
20 = T
IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
becomes:
IF Z + A = A
AND A + A = B
AND J + A = K
AND K + B = T
THEN A + B = J is:
a] True?
>Proving my original point, idiot.
how so? NOT. duh.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
"You don't need to know base three.
The logic is sound regardless."
show us. go ahead, genius.
anyone wanna bet whether Zen will explain the "logically sound"
nature of Base 3 maths as it is posed above (and not using his
own tortured goalposts instead)? LOL.
cha' ching.
$29 - $1 = $28, oddly enough.
-$Zero... ZenAndTheArtOf... TheSoundOf... OneHandClapping...
AndCreativeGenius... AndTheInexorableDifferencesBetween...
OddAndEvenNumbers... AndHowThatTranslatesInto... UnicornianMath...
AndTheMainUnicornianDiscovery:
to wit:
All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.
so, um... where's my fricken' Nobel Peace Prize?
------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
------------------------------- 0zju-12 -------------------------------