good news vs bad news
$Zero
somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
i've got some *really* good news
and some *really* bad news.
but i can only tell you one or the other.
which do you want?
-$Zero...
on your feet all day
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/24e7dc80afdca590
Alan Hope
$Zero wrote:
> good news vs bad news
>
> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>
> i've got some *really* good news
>
> and some *really* bad news.
>
> but i can only tell you one or the other.
>
> which do you want?
The good news, of course. You get bad news whether you want it or not.
--
AH
$Zero
nope.
the *really* good news could be that there is no *really* bad news.
see how that works?
Pies de Arcilla
> good news vs bad news
>
> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>
> i've got some *really* good news
>
> and some *really* bad news.
>
> but i can only tell you one or the other.
>
> which do you want?
The bad news, because I'll find out about the good news eventually
anyway, whereas I want to be forwarned about whatever bad has
happened.
Alan Hope
$Zero wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:37�pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> good news vs bad news
>>> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>>> i've got some *really* good news
>>> and some *really* bad news.
>>> but i can only tell you one or the other.
>>> which do you want?
>> The good news, of course.
>>
>> You get bad news whether you want it or not.
>
> nope.
>
> the *really* good news could be that there is no *really* bad news.
>
> see how that works?
Yeah, I see. Another of your 2+2=5 tricks.
You lied about the conditions. Game over.
--
AH
$Zero
you've made the exact same critical thinking error that Alan made.
to wit: you've failed to see the obvious.
what if part of the *really* bad news is such that you'll never know
what the *really* good news is?
what makes you assume otherwise?
-$Zero...
does asking questions make you a creative genius?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b4d6e507c593b4b3
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 5:37 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >>
> >>> good news vs bad news
> >>>
> >>> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
> >>>
> >>> i've got some *really* good news
> >>> and some *really* bad news.
> >>> but i can only tell you one or the other.
> >>> which do you want?
> >>>
> >> The good news, of course.
>
> >> You get bad news whether you want it or not.
>
> > nope.
>
> > the *really* good news could be that there is no *really* bad news.
>
> > see how that works?
>
> Yeah, I see.
not.
> Another of your 2+2=5 tricks.
>
> You lied about the conditions.
oh brother.
> Game over.
hardly.
FACT: i didn't lie about any conditions whatsoever.
just because your critical thinking skills aren't as good as you'd
like to think they are is no reason at all to try and move the
goalposts by falsely accusing me of telling a lie.
that's just more lazy thinkins' on your part.
(born of the intellectual embarassment of your stupidly jumping to
idiotic unsupportable conclusions).
otherwise you'd have no trouble whatsoever identifying the alleged lie
nor the condition to which you seem to want to apply it to.
just as there are no lies in the following conditions:
i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
otherwise, again, you'd have no trouble whatsoever identifying the
alleged lie nor the condition to which you seem to want to apply it
to.
it's all a matter of IF.
"if a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
-- Dr. Zen
[paraphrased]
"if all brown haired women have bad tempers..."
-- Dr. Zen
[mocked]
it's all a matter of IF.
IF AND THEN
that's what logic (and reason) is all about.
[bowing]
-$Zero...
does asking questions make you a creative genius?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b4d6e507c593b4b3
good news vs bad news
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f0ba6a28551c7a77
LNC
No, it's 0+0=2, by his rules; however, 0 (the "good news" that isn't
because there's no news since there's no bad news either), plus 0 (the
"bad news" that isn't) = what $Zero does best: believes there's a point
when there isn't and then misses the point when he's shown it.
Watch him come back and type more in the name of this "Socratic" dialogue.
LNC
serenebabe
> On Jul 19, 1:05�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 4:59 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> good news vs bad news
>>
>>> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>>
>>> i've got some *really* good news
>>
>>> and some *really* bad news.
>>
>>> but i can only tell you one or the other.
>>
>>> which do you want?
>>
>> The bad news, because I'll find out about the good news eventually
>> anyway, whereas I want to be forwarned about whatever bad has
>> happened.
>
> you've made the exact same critical thinking error that Alan made.
>
> to wit: you've failed to see the obvious.
>
> what if part of the *really* bad news is such that you'll never know
> what the *really* good news is?
>
> what makes you assume otherwise?
I just got dizzy.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/
$Zero
> Alan Hope wrote:
>
> > $Zero wrote:
> >> On Jul 18, 5:37�pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> $Zero wrote:
> >>>> good news vs bad news
> >>>> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
> >>>> i've got some *really* good news
> >>>> and some *really* bad news.
> >>>> but i can only tell you one or the other.
> >>>> which do you want?
> >>> The good news, of course.
>
> >>> You get bad news whether you want it or not.
>
> >> nope.
>
> >> the *really* good news could be that there is no *really* bad news.
>
> >> see how that works?
>
> > Yeah, I see. Another of your 2+2=5 tricks.
> > You lied about the conditions. Game over.
>
> No, it's 0+0=2, by his rules;
no, if 2+2=5 (than um=0.5) and that would mean:
0+0=1
but that presupposes that 0 is an even number.
is it?
unknown at this point.
it ceratinly is an even number when it's used as a placemarker in base
ten values greater than 0.
but when it's used to equal nothing, is that an even number?
can you divide 0 by 2 and get two equal whole numbers as a result?
is 0 a whole number?
> however, 0 (the "good news" that isn't
> because there's no news since there's no bad news either),
logically speaking, it's conditional on which news you want.
> plus 0 (the "bad news" that isn't) = what $Zero does best:
> believes there's a point when there isn't and then misses
> the point when he's shown it.
which point have i missed?
> Watch him come back and type more in the name of
> this "Socratic" dialogue.
no thanks.
...
yo, LNC, remember our other discussion where you came up empty?
whatever happened to all the music?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/85cf84ecd83d1630
i ran across that commercial again a couple days ago.
check this out:
http://timelife.com/flowerpower
click on the track listings to see how many of the 175 songs you don't
recognize. i'd estimate four or five, max.
they even provide audio samples if the names aren't familiar to you.
show me a similar thing for music composed over the last twenty years
or so.
heck, just name five songs that most people know from our latest music
scene.
then, if you ever get a spare fraction of "infinite time", you can try
coming up with that law example i asked you for in that thread about
the value of asking why (see sig below).
-$Zero...
i'm a big "why?" person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a49e791bb4c5dc10
Pies de Arcilla
> On Jul 19, 1:05�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 4:59 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > good news vs bad news
>
> > > somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>
> > > i've got some *really* good news
>
> > > and some *really* bad news.
>
> > > but i can only tell you one or the other.
>
> > > which do you want?
>
> > The bad news, because I'll find out about the good news eventually
> > anyway, whereas I want to be forwarned about whatever bad has
> > happened.
>
> you've made the exact same critical thinking error that Alan made.
>
> to wit: you've failed to see the obvious.
>
> what if part of the *really* bad news is such that you'll never know
> what the *really* good news is?
>
> what makes you assume otherwise?
If the good news and the bad news depend on which you hear first, then
the person (who I highly respect) didn't _have_ both pieces of news to
give. And since a person who I highly respect would never lie, he/she/
it would vanish in a puff of logic.
So there.
$Zero
> On 2008-07-19 12:27:09 -0400, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
> > On Jul 19, 1:05�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 18, 4:59 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> good news vs bad news
>
> >>> somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>
> >>> i've got some *really* good news
>
> >>> and some *really* bad news.
>
> >>> but i can only tell you one or the other.
>
> >>> which do you want?
>
> >> The bad news, because I'll find out about the good news eventually
> >> anyway, whereas I want to be forwarned about whatever bad has
> >> happened.
>
> > you've made the exact same critical thinking error that Alan made.
>
> > to wit: you've failed to see the obvious.
>
> > what if part of the *really* bad news is such that you'll never know
> > what the *really* good news is?
>
> > what makes you assume otherwise?
>
> I just got dizzy.
why?
...
ba'dum, chsh!
$Zero
> On Jul 19, 12:27 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 1:05 am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 4:59 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > good news vs bad news
>
> > > > somebody you highly respect comes up to you and says:
>
> > > > i've got some *really* good news
>
> > > > and some *really* bad news.
>
> > > > but i can only tell you one or the other.
>
> > > > which do you want?
>
> > > The bad news, because I'll find out about the good news eventually
> > > anyway, whereas I want to be forwarned about whatever bad has
> > > happened.
>
> > you've made the exact same critical thinking error that Alan made.
>
> > to wit: you've failed to see the obvious.
>
> > what if part of the *really* bad news is such that you'll never know
> > what the *really* good news is?
>
> > what makes you assume otherwise?
>
> If the good news and the bad news depend on which you hear first, then
> the person (who I highly respect) didn't _have_ both pieces of news to
> give.
what if the person (who you highly respect) was given both the good
news and the bad news in a form that prevented him or her from knowing
what either the good news or the bad news was until you decided which
one you wanted?
like say, both the good news and the bad news were written on a peice
of paper which was folded up in such a way that once you chose which
news you wanted, unfolding the paper would cause the news that you
rejected to be smeared or torn beyond recognition.
> And since a person who I highly respect would never lie, he/she/
> it would vanish in a puff of logic.
there would be no lie involved.
-$Zero...
things that make me want to be a better person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd8e55d903d0e504
LNC
I understand why your opinion is what it is about whose posts are the
best and why you have an opinion that there are good posters and ones
not so good. Yours validate mine.
LNC
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 11:20�pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 19, 12:27 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 19, 1:05 am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> If the good news and the bad news depend on which you hear first, then
> >> the person (who I highly respect) didn't _have_ both pieces of news to
> >> give.
>
> > what if the person (who you highly respect) was given both the good
> > news and the bad news in a form that prevented him or her from knowing
> > what either the good news or the bad news was until you decided which
> > one you wanted?
>
> > like say, both the good news and the bad news were written on a peice
> > of paper which was folded up in such a way that once you chose which
> > news you wanted, unfolding the paper would cause the news that you
> > rejected to be smeared or torn beyond recognition.
>
> >> And since a person who I highly respect would never lie, he/she/
> >> it would vanish in a puff of logic.
>
> > there would be no lie involved.
>
> I understand why your opinion is what it is about whose posts are the
> best and why you have an opinion that there are good posters and ones
> not so good.
i suspect yours would be much better if you didn't feel that taking a
few seconds to answer a simple question in an interesting and
informative way was beneath you.
> Yours validate mine.
ok.
...
"if a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
-- Dr. Zen
[paraphrased]
"if all brown haired women have bad tempers..."
-- Dr. Zen
[mocked]
"if 3 + 3 = 5..."
-- Dr. Zen
[owned]
-$Zero...
Pies de Arcilla
In that case, they wouldn't _know_ that there was good news and bad
news, so they couldn't offer me a choice, so I wouldn't have to _make_
a choice.
Or if they did know both pieces of news, the condition of the paper
would be irrelevant.
It sounds like a fancy way for blaming me for choosing something that
I can't choose.
$Zero
they could have told so by someone whom they absolutely trusted.
> so they couldn't offer me a choice,
why not?
> so I wouldn't have to _make_ a choice.
well, sure, that's one possible option.
> Or if they did know both pieces of news, the condition of the paper
> would be irrelevant.
i was simply addressing your characterization that a person whom you
trusted would be necessarily lying. that's not true as i have proven
above.
> It sounds like a fancy way for blaming me for choosing something that
> I can't choose.
that's kind of a strange and errored interpretation.
the original question was much simpler than all that.
to wit:
realizing that both news types exist, and given the choice of hearing
only one or the other, which do you prefer to be told: the really good
news or the really bad news?
-$Zero...
your percentage of happiness
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/103b803d2b675c43