Why set theory / math is important
Snit
Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
...empty!
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1cbbac8c640cc65>
-----
In a different notation, you are claiming:
Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid
Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
A = B
B = C
A <> C
I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my
comments there ... you will need to refute the idea that A =
C in the math, above. And even then, you will have refuted
those comments, not the argument in question."
I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you
will not be able to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to
see you try, and it will be just as fun to watch you try to
weasel out of this one.
-----
And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the features
of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
pervert.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Tommy Troll
> <http://abstrusegoose.com/96>
>
> Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
>
> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
> would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
>
> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
> as you have said it would!
>
> your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
> to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
> ...empty!
>
> whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
> the answer actually is
>
> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>
> Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
>
> And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
> concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
>
Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
or that a set with no elements cannot spawn a subset. That is so
trivial. A simple example will suffice:
Empty set: All of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
concept of a windowed OS.
Now, try to make a subset of that set. You can't, it's a logical
contradiction. Hell, that was high school math in my day, they
probably teach in 1st grade now.
Think of it this way. Two sets are equal if they contain the same
elements. Since the only set that can be made from an empty set is
another empty set all empty sets must be equal. For the formal proof
see:
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm/Unit1Module1/Unit1Mod1.html
Sonnova
(in article
<fb517d26-81b6-44e2...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>):
You got that wrong. The state of public education these days says that they
don't teach it AT ALL.
zara
"Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C57EA3C7...@news.giganews.com...
Right. And for good reason.
Steve Carroll
Snit is one of those people... as is evidenced by the fact that he
tried to misrepresent my position the way he has above. The stuff I
was talking about doesn't neatly fit into set theory. Snit argued that
someone was guilty while simultaneously stating that he had no proof
at all that the person was guilty... zilch... nada... 0% proof.
Anyone with a working brain know that's not really an "argument", at
all... it's merely an unsupported opinion and it has nothing to do
with math of any kind... which is why Snit brought math up (in a
failed attempt to obfuscate the obvious).
Steve Carroll
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:36:19 -0800, Tommy Troll wrote
> (in article
You're wrong, especially about math in the U.S. as of late.
Rhino Plastee
What the fuck are you babbling about? 0% proof? What the fuck does that
even mean? How do you measure it? Proof of what?
Rhino Plastee
Well show up on time you asshole!
Snit
gjc5ft$b4h$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/29/08 8:44 PM:
Steve has no idea. He is confusing the concept of a mathematical or logical
proof (where you generally either have all or none) with the burden of proof
in a court of law... where there is no 0/100% concept, and he is also
confused by the idea of someone supporting their views in a public forum vs.
adjudication in a court of law.
In the end, of course, Steve Carroll is just confused and, frankly, not very
bright. And grossly dishonest. He never could find a reasoned defense for
his good buddy Bush so he made up some crap about how some meta-debate
somehow made him "win", even though his meta-debate argument was moronic and
100% irrelevant.
You see, Steve Carroll is insane and very, very angry. He insists that it
is somehow against the presumption of innocence for people to come to
reasoned, well supported and logical conclusions about Bush's guilt in any
context but in a court of law, but then insists that it is fine to say
Clinton was guilty even *contrary* to the findings of a court of law.
Nobody at this point really doubts Bush's guilt. Here is just one list of
his illegal activities:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
The one good thing about Carroll is he has admitted he does not vote. At
first he claimed it was because he knew he was not knowledgeable enough to
have an informed vote but later it came out he was disenfranchised based on
criminal behavior, based on his comments I suspect it is involving sexual
behavior or advances with a child, though as far as I know Steve has never
clarified what law *he* was found guilty for. He has made it clear he has
ended up in court many times.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Tommy Troll
>
> - Show quoted text -
Given the state of math knowledge of the sophomores in my econ classes
you are correct.
Snit
>>> You got that wrong. The state of public education these days says
>>> that they don't teach it AT ALL.
>>
>> You're wrong, especially about math in the U.S. as of late.
>
> Well show up on time you asshole!
Hey, Steve Carroll is on record saying he does not even think that someone
who teaches has a "real job" - though then he tried to dig himself out of
that hole and say only teachers he hates for proving him wrong do not have
"real jobs". Whatever. He is insane.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Snit
a8ac59e4-2902-4a64...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on
12/29/08 8:58 PM:
>>>> Now, try to make a subset of that set. You can't, it's a logical
>>>> contradiction. Hell, that was high school math in my day, they
>>>> probably teach in 1st grade now.
>>
>>> You got that wrong. The state of public education these days says that they
>>> don't teach it AT ALL.
>>
>> You're wrong, especially about math in the U.S. as of late.- Hide quoted text
>> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Given the state of math knowledge of the sophomores in my econ classes
> you are correct.
Steve Carroll is on record saying he does not even think that someone who
teaches has a "real job" - though then he tried to dig himself out of that
hole and say only teachers he hates for proving him wrong do not have "real
jobs". Whatever. He is insane.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Alan Baker
<fb517d26-81b6-44e2...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Tommy Troll <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wow.
You can't even check that your source actually agrees with what you
claim:
"Exercise #7 above illustrates a general fact about subsets:
Every set is a subset of itself."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IOW, despite your pontificating about how elementary this all is for
you, you got it completely wrong.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Snit
alangbaker-B19B7...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net on 12/29/08 11:45
PM:
I still say Wally takes the cake for getting the most basic of set theory
ideas wrong. Carroll was not far behind... and Tim Adams was slapping their
backs in support all the way.
I do not recall you taking them to task over their much more severe blunders
on this very topic. Interesting.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 1:36ápm, Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 12:56ápm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > <http://abstrusegoose.com/96>
> >
> > > Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
> >
> > > á á áI gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
> > > á á áwould not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
> >
> > > á á áBut zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
> > > á á áas you have said it would!
> >
> > > á á áyour delusion is that something that owes its very existence
> > > á á áto the fact that it contains information can in fact be
> > > á á á...empty!
> >
> > > á á áwhether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
> > > á á áthe answer actually is
> >
> > > á á áit makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> > > á á ábecause the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
> >
> > > á á áNow research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
> >
> > > And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
> > > concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
> >
> > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1cbbac8c640...>
> > > á á -----
> > > á á In a different notation, you are claiming:
> > > á á á á Lack of proof á = á áDoubt
> > > á á á á Doubt á á á á á = á áValid Refutation
> > > á á á á Lack of proof á <> á Valid Refutation
> > > á á If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid
> > > á á Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
> > > á á á á A = áB
> > > á á á á B = áC
> > > á á á á A <> C
> > > á á I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my
> > > á á comments there ... you will need to refute the idea that A =
> > > á á C in the math, above. And even then, you will have refuted
> > > á á those comments, not the argument in question."
> >
> > > á á I did not mean that as a challenge. áLet me be clear, you
> > > á á will not be able to prove that A <> C. áIt is hilarious to
> > > á á see you try, and it will be just as fun to watch you try to
> > > á á weasel out of this one.
> > > á á -----
> >
> > > And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
> > > features
> > > of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
> > > pervert.
> >
> > > --
> > > Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus
> > > with
> > > walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
> >
> > Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
>
> Snit is one of those people... as is evidenced by the fact that he
> tried to misrepresent my position the way he has above. The stuff I
> was talking about doesn't neatly fit into set theory. Snit argued that
> someone was guilty while simultaneously stating that he had no proof
> at all that the person was guilty... zilch... nada... 0% proof.
> Anyone with a working brain know that's not really an "argument", at
> all... it's merely an unsupported opinion and it has nothing to do
> with math of any kind... which is why Snit brought math up (in a
> failed attempt to obfuscate the obvious).
I see michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, also continue to lie about
me.
In fact I mentioned several months ago that snit is such a pervert, he
constantly keeps bringing up sex and incest in his posting - a claim he denied,
yet here it is again. so typical of michael.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
Said the guy who claimed that his "evidence" didn't contain one true
statement from which something else can necessarily follow.
(snip Snit's delusions)
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
> >>> You got that wrong. The state of public education these days says
> >>> that they don't teach it AT ALL.
>
> >> You're wrong, especially about math in the U.S. as of late.
>
> > Well show up on time you asshole!
>
> Hey, Steve Carroll is on record saying he does not even think that someone
> who teaches has a "real job"
With the caveat that the "someone" is you, of course.
Steve Carroll
I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated that
he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not offer proof "
and then started babbling about math (a thing he is still doing) when
I pointed out the absurdity of his position. That sockpuppets and
shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets is pretty funny;)
But hey, "support" away. LOL!
Steve Carroll
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> alangbaker-B19B74.22453629122...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net on 12/29/08 11:45
> PM:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Said the guy who didn't know what proper and improper sets were;)
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-5AAD66.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
12/30/08 5:58 AM:
...
>>>> And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
>>>> features of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just
>>>> a pervert.
...
> I see michael glasser... also continue to lie about me.
>
> In fact I mentioned several months ago that snit is such a pervert, he
> constantly keeps bringing up sex and incest in his posting - a claim he
> denied, yet here it is again. so typical of michael.
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
And in that post you claim that sex, to you, is "identical" to incest (and
show you are clueless about the fact that if A=B then B=A)
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50e74d51bff00c46>
And where I go onto much more detail, and offer more links and message IDs.
You clearly have claimed that sex, from your perspective, is "identical" to
incest and that sex, by the definition *you* use, "MUST include all of the
features of incest."
And yet, even though the Google record and I are clearly and unambiguously
in agreement, you claim we are somehow lying. So, Tim, how did I get Google
to join me in this alleged lie?
Hint, Tim: No matter how many times you insist I must be able to control the
Google archive I cannot. Nor can you. Nor can your buddy Steve Carroll,
who claimed to be able to. You simply are lying - and the Google archive
proves it.
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Rhino Plastee
You talk about percentages and then cry like a baby when others talk about
math like you do not even know a percentage is a mathematical term. You are
fucking insane.
Snit
...
>>> What the fuck are you babbling about? 0% proof? What the fuck does
>>> that even mean? How do you measure it?
>>
>> I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
>> himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
>> evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
>> times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated that
>> he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not offer proof "
>> and then started babbling about math (a thing he is still doing) when
>> I pointed out the absurdity of his position. That sockpuppets and
>> shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets is pretty funny;)
>>
>> But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
> You talk about percentages and then cry like a baby when others talk about
> math like you do not even know a percentage is a mathematical term. You are
> fucking insane.
>
>
It boils down to:
* Steve Carroll has no idea what he is talking about.
* Steve Carroll repeats his same Argument from Ignorance over and over,
where he pretends a lack of proof = a refutation. It does not.
* Steve Carroll pretends a lack of proof is the same as a lack of
support... it is not.
* Steve Carroll conflates the ideas of a proof as used in absolute
terms with the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which
is not about absolutes.
* Steve Carroll has been called on this many times by many people,
and he deems them all "sock puppets and shills" because he is
hate filled, paranoid, and delusional.
* Steve Carroll was never able to refute the arguments people made
against Bush and he freaked out
If Steve Carroll *could* actually defend Bush he would have years ago. He
could not... so he lost it. He freaked out and started targeting multiple
Usenet groups, including those for people seeking support from one another.
His ISP gave him warnings and eventually killed his Usenet access... and
later he and other abusers such as him was part of what lead to his ISP
dropping Usenet services completely.
Steve Carroll
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-5AAD66.07585230122...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 12/30/08 5:58 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >>>> And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
> >>>> features of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just
> >>>> a pervert.
>
> ...
>
> > I see michael glasser... also continue to lie about me.
>
> > In fact I mentioned several months ago that snit is such a pervert, he
> > constantly keeps bringing up sex and incest in his posting - a claim he
> > denied, yet here it is again. so typical of michael.
>
> -----
> by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> -----
>
>
> And in that post you claim that sex, to you, is "identical" to incest
Here is what Tim claimed in "that post":
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore they ARE
identical
when presented in that order."
> (and show you are clueless about the fact that if A=B then B=A)
Why is what Tim said
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50e74d51bff0...>
>
> And where I go onto much more detail, and offer more links and message IDs.
> You clearly have claimed that sex, from your perspective, is "identical" to
> incest and that sex, by the definition *you* use, "MUST include all of the
> features of incest."
>
> And yet, even though the Google record and I are clearly and unambiguously
> in agreement, you claim we are somehow lying. So, Tim, how did I get Google
> to join me in this alleged lie?
I just did "get Google" to join in by quoting what Tim actually said,
(as opposed to your claim of what he said) and it's showing that you
are taking things out of context... again. By the way, the second of
your 2 links led to a post by you... misrepresenting what Tim "said"
yet again Why do you still believe people are as stupid as you need
them to be?
(snip Snit's additional, feeble efforts to utilize his "psych degree")
Steve Carroll
Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he had
a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of
100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
says... it does not offer proof. This doesn't require a percentage
number attached to it... but since Snit decided to address it on such
an absurd level I obliged him by pointing to the reality he is *still*
trying to avoid. Of course, you are already aware of all of this;)
Rhino Plastee
So what was being proved or supported or whatever and what was the disproof?
And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference between a 100%
lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof? You fucking talk in riddles to
avoid saying anything.
Me
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C57FA570.E751C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> gjdkd9$420$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 10:05 AM:
> It boils down to:
You and your sock puppet army wasting a prodigious amount of Usenet
resources.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Rhino Plastee
What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
anything? Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the
features of incest? Do you agree sex and incest are identical? Where di
you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said? And why did you whine that the
link Snit said was to his post was what he said it was? Are you just
fucking insane?
Snit
12/30/08 10:49 AM:
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C57FA570.E751C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>> gjdkd9$420$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 10:05 AM:
>
>> It boils down to:
>
> You and your sock puppet army wasting a prodigious amount of Usenet
> resources.
OK, show how Rhino and Steve are my "sock puppets".
Don't trip over your laces as you run.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
> ...
>
> >>> What the fuck are you babbling about? 0% proof? What the fuck does
> >>> that even mean? How do you measure it?
>
> >> I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
> >> himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
> >> evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
> >> times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated that
> >> he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not offer proof "
> >> and then started babbling about math (a thing he is still doing) when
> >> I pointed out the absurdity of his position. That sockpuppets and
> >> shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets is pretty funny;)
>
> >> But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
> > You talk about percentages and then cry like a baby when others talk about
> > math like you do not even know a percentage is a mathematical term. You are
> > fucking insane.
>
> It boils down to:
>
> * Steve Carroll has no idea what he is talking about.
I know enough to know that you alleged guilt of someone and stated
that you were convinced by "evidence" that you admitted "does not
offer proof". You even defined the word "proof" when you made this
statement:
""Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
a
logical sense, proof."
Here you are seen admitting that you do not have one true thing from
which something else can necessarily follow. Of course, you are also
absurdly claiming that your "evidence" "strongly supports" your
"conclusion". Only you would claim that in the absence of *any* proof
at all... that's 0% proof for you math hounds;)
> * Steve Carroll repeats his same Argument from Ignorance over and over,
> where he pretends a lack of proof = a refutation. It does not.
The "Argument from Ignorance" is all yours:
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam
("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a
logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only
because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has
not been proven true".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
This is exactly what you are doing... you are claiming that you have
not offered *any* proof for your argument while simultaneously
claiming that the argument is true. Arguments that allege guilt
require some form of proof for people to take the argument seriously.
Having *no* proof means you don't really have an argument... nothing
tricky about it. Face it, Snit, what you are calling your 'strongly
supported argument' is nothing but an opinion based on not a single
true thing from which something else could necessarily follow... and
no amount of puppets/shills can help you out if it;)
> * Steve Carroll pretends a lack of proof is the same as a lack of
> support... it is not.
Translation: Steve Carroll realizes that a lack of proof means *no*
proof and *no* proof means no argument.
Read the definition of an "Argument from Ignorance" I just pointed
to... or better, get someone to read it to you;)
> * Steve Carroll conflates the ideas of a proof as used in absolute
> terms with the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which
> is not about absolutes.
There is no need to talk about "absolutes" other than the fact that
you admitted you had' *no* proof at all... that's pretty "absolute".
Why is this so difficult for you, Snit? ROFL!
> * Steve Carroll has been called on this many times by many people,
Point to these "people"... I'll be glad to explain my position and
yours to them, you know... being that you don't seem to understand
either of them;)
> * Steve Carroll was never able to refute the arguments people made
> against Bush and he freaked out
Translation: Steve Carroll correctly pointed to the fact that Snit
claimed he is convinced a person is guilty based on "evidence" that
Snit readily admits does not offer a single true thing from which
something else can necessarily follow.
> If Steve Carroll *could* actually defend Bush he would have years ago.
Why do you *still* believe that anyone needs a 'defense' against your
delusions? I could use this exact same type of argument and
claim that Bush is innocent because no one has successfully prosecuted
him. Oh wait... that actually *is* the case. LOL!
(snip Snit's other delusions)
Snit
>> Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he had
>> a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of
>> 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
>> was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
>> realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
>> says... it does not offer proof. This doesn't require a percentage
>> number attached to it... but since Snit decided to address it on such
>> an absurd level I obliged him by pointing to the reality he is *still*
>> trying to avoid. Of course, you are already aware of all of this;)
>
> So what was being proved or supported or whatever and what was the disproof?
What was being supported was that Bush broke the law.
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
Steve freaked out when he could not find an honest refutation. Since then
other arguments have been made, including these:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
Those just made Steve freak out more.
> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference between a 100%
> lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Steve is just insane.
> You fucking talk in riddles to avoid saying anything.
Steve's whole point is that Bush is his hero and he loathes me for pointing
out bad things about Bush. Steve really has *nothing* else to say.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Steve Carroll
Allegations of guilt require a disproof? LOL! Sure... you're not a
Snit puppet/shill;)
> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference between a 100%
> lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
LOL!
Snit, you're a riot;)
Snit
You see, Steve Carroll will *never* answer questions. He fears them. Does
he agree with Tim Adams about sex and incest being identical? Well, sure,
he *defends* Tim Adams when it is pointed out how perverted that claim is,
but Steve will never say what his view is. Does Steve Carroll think, as Tim
Adams does, that "sex MUST include all of the features of incest"... again,
Steve will not say. But Steve surely will lash out at anyone who points out
how Tim's personal definition of sex clearly points to his perversion.
Steve knows Tim Adams' stated views are perverse... but he and Tim (and
Wally) *always* support each other. For Steve to actually stand up and take
a stand on Tim's perverse claims, and not just lash out as he lets his
hatred consume him, would be to end their coalition.
Steve cannot do that... he has made it clear he *needs* people to agree with
him... or claim to. And, of course, anyone who disagrees with him (all sane
and honest people) he says are my sock puppets and shills.
Oh, and as far as my "misrepresenting" what Tim said, well, Steve will make
that accusation but *never* support it. He cannot. But he will whine that
a link to a post of mine that gives more info is something he cannot handle
so he has to lie about it. Whatever... Steve Carroll is a hate filled
lunatic. Every regular in CSMA knows it.
Rhino Plastee
So when you accuse Snit of wrong doing no contrary evidence is needed to
disprove you. Thanks for your admission asshole.
Me
> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post 84026$495a5f44$22...@news.teranews.com
> on
> 12/30/08 10:49 AM:
>
>>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C57FA570.E751C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>>> gjdkd9$420$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 10:05 AM:
>>
>>> It boils down to:
>>
>> You and your sock puppet army wasting a prodigious amount of Usenet
>> resources.
>
> OK, show how Rhino and Steve are my "sock puppets".
>
> Don't trip over your laces as you run.
There you go again. You must have the world's record for crap stored in
Usenet archives.
Rhino Plastee
What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of being
guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to support the
accusation? Where was the counter to that arguement? Why do you talk in
riddles and refuse to talk about anything? Snit has pointed to multiple
arguements against Bush and you are too fucking dishonest to admit you have
no counter.
Me
"Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:gjdn37$7ej$1...@news.albasani.net...
Snit, your sock puppet isn't fooling anybody.
> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
> anything?
His point is clear.
> Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the features of
> incest?
Tim never said anything like that.
> Do you agree sex and incest are identical?
Neither Steve nor Tim said they were.
> Where di you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said?
In the same things your current sock puppet is misrepresenting what Tim
said, Snit.
> And why did you whine that the link Snit said was to his post was what he
> said it was?
He didn't.
> Are you just fucking insane?
Or to be redundant, are you Snit? No, he's not.
Your game seems to think about incest by putting words into other people's
mouths about the subject.
Aren't you the same guy who posted long threads debating whether or not it
would be okay to have sex with a corpse as long as you got the person's
permission while they were alive?
Snit
12/30/08 11:13 AM:
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C57FAF3C.E7562%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post 84026$495a5f44$22...@news.teranews.com
>> on
>> 12/30/08 10:49 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C57FA570.E751C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>>>> gjdkd9$420$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 10:05 AM:
>>>
>>>> It boils down to:
>>>
>>> You and your sock puppet army wasting a prodigious amount of Usenet
>>> resources.
>>
>> OK, show how Rhino and Steve are my "sock puppets".
>>
>> Don't trip over your laces as you run.
>
> There you go again. You must have the world's record for crap stored in
> Usenet archives.
You made an accusation. You failed to support it... running from doing so,
just as I predicted.
OK.
Whatever.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
12/30/08 11:33 AM:
...
>>> (snip Snit's additional, feeble efforts to utilize his "psych degree")
>
> Snit, your sock puppet isn't fooling anybody.
Show where Steve Carroll is my sock. Or Rhino Plastee. You have now
claimed both are... and you are wrong on both accounts.
>
>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
>> anything?
>
> His point is clear.
So what do you think it is?
>> Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the features of
>> incest?
>
> Tim never said anything like that.
<a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
-----
by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
-----
Clearly he did.
>> Do you agree sex and incest are identical?
>
> Neither Steve nor Tim said they were.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
Clearly Tim did.
>> Where di you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said?
>
> In the same things your current sock puppet is misrepresenting what Tim
> said, Snit.
Empty accusations get you nowhere.
...
> Your game seems to think about incest by putting words into other people's
> mouths about the subject.
What words do you think I put into who's mouth? If you mean the above words
shown in the Google record, how did I get Google in on the deception?
> Aren't you the same guy who posted long threads debating whether or not it
> would be okay to have sex with a corpse as long as you got the person's
> permission while they were alive?
Nope.
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Snit
>>>
>>> So what was being proved or supported or whatever and what was the
>>> disproof?
>>
>> Allegations of guilt require a disproof? LOL! Sure... you're not a
>> Snit puppet/shill;)
>>
>>
>>> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference
>>> between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Snit, you're a riot;)
>
> So when you accuse Snit of wrong doing no contrary evidence is needed to
> disprove you. Thanks for your admission asshole.
The rules are different for Bush... no amount of evidence is acceptable to
Steve... Bush has not been convicted of a crime so no amount of evidence
will suffice to show his guilt... but Clinton can be guilty *contrary* to
the findings of a court... and I can be guilty, so says Steve, based on his
unsupported accusations.
As I said: it all comes down to Steve being consumed by his hatred for my
not worshipping is hero Bush.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Snit
> What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of being
> guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to support the
> accusation? Where was the counter to that arguement? Why do you talk in
> riddles and refuse to talk about anything? Snit has pointed to multiple
> arguements against Bush and you are too fucking dishonest to admit you have
> no counter.
Steve Carroll has *no* argument to counter the evidence against Bush. None.
So he runs to word games and to meta-debates.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I had rescinded my argument
against Bush and now am re-supporting it... that seems to be the lie Steve
is pushing with his BS. It would *still* be irrelevant... Steve would still
have failed to offer a refutation, all he would be doing is saying that the
argument he could not refute was not consistently supported (and, keep in
mind, his claim of even *that* is clearly a lie).
Steve has no point to make... he is just consumed by his hatred.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Rhino Plastee
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> gjdogc$9ak$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 11:15 AM:
>
>> What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of
>> being guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to
>> support the accusation? Where was the counter to that arguement?
>> Why do you talk in riddles and refuse to talk about anything? Snit
>> has pointed to multiple arguements against Bush and you are too
>> fucking dishonest to admit you have no counter.
>
> Steve Carroll has *no* argument to counter the evidence against Bush.
> None. So he runs to word games and to meta-debates.
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I had rescinded my argument
> against Bush and now am re-supporting it... that seems to be the lie
> Steve is pushing with his BS. It would *still* be irrelevant...
> Steve would still have failed to offer a refutation, all he would be
> doing is saying that the argument he could not refute was not
> consistently supported (and, keep in mind, his claim of even *that*
> is clearly a lie).
>
> Steve has no point to make... he is just consumed by his hatred.
All of this is stupid. You said some things about Bush how long ago?
Years? This pissed Steve off and you two are still arguing over it. Why?
Rhino Plastee
Steve is a fucking moron.
Rhino Plastee
Snit quoted Tim you fuck nugget.
Snit
Steve is too hate-filled to let it go. He knows he has no counter to the
arguments presented here:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
And here:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
His reaction is to insist that since I have acknowledge, correctly, that any
argument about real-world facts is open to the possibility of error (and
this is not provable in an absolute sense) that this means the arguments are
refuted. It is, in a word, idiotic of him... but it is the absolute best he
has. He lost the debate about Bush and then lost his idiotic meta-debates
about that debate... and along the way showed he disagreed with Justice
Black of the Supreme Court, disagreed with himself, disagreed with what the
presumption of innocence is about (hint, it deals with adjudication but does
not restrict US citizens from looking at evidence and coming to reasoned
conclusions on their own), and otherwise made a complete fool of himself.
Notice how I do not reply to his posts. If you and others were not
responding to him I would not even know he was still posting to CSMA. From
what I have seen, though, he has nothing new to say - just the same
repetition of his blabbering brought on by his consumption of his hatred.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
At least when he allows his hatred to consume him, yes, very much so.
--
"And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It零
never a reason." - Bill Gates
Snit
...
>>> And why did you whine that the link Snit said was to his post was
>>> what he said it was?
>>
>> He didn't.
...
> Snit quoted Tim you fuck nugget.
>
>
And gave message IDs / Links.
Yeah... Steve and "Me" and Tim Adams insist that I somehow altered the
Google record to support my claims.
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Me
> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post d0e8$495a697a$29...@news.teranews.com on
> 12/30/08 11:33 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> (snip Snit's additional, feeble efforts to utilize his "psych degree")
>>
>> Snit, your sock puppet isn't fooling anybody.
>
> Show where Steve Carroll is my sock. Or Rhino Plastee. You have now
> claimed both are... and you are wrong on both accounts.
>>
>>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
>>> anything?
>>
>> His point is clear.
>
> So what do you think it is?
It's in what you snipped out.
>>> Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the features of
>>> incest?
>>
>> Tim never said anything like that.
>
> <a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> -----
> by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> -----
>
> Clearly he did.
>
>>> Do you agree sex and incest are identical?
>>
>> Neither Steve nor Tim said they were.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
>
> Clearly Tim did.
No he didn't.
>>> Where di you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said?
>>
>> In the same things your current sock puppet is misrepresenting what Tim
>> said, Snit.
>
> Empty accusations get you nowhere.
> ...
I haven't made any of those.
>> Your game seems to think about incest by putting words into other
>> people's
>> mouths about the subject.
>
> What words do you think I put into who's mouth?
The ones you made up.
> If you mean the above words
> shown in the Google record, how did I get Google in on the deception?
The words are not in the Google record the way you say they are, other in
the places where you wrote them and claimed that someone else said that.
>> Aren't you the same guy who posted long threads debating whether or not
>> it
>> would be okay to have sex with a corpse as long as you got the person's
>> permission while they were alive?
>
> Nope.
I sure hope not.
Snit
12/30/08 4:22 PM:
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C57FBFCC.E75A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post d0e8$495a697a$29...@news.teranews.com on
>> 12/30/08 11:33 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> (snip Snit's additional, feeble efforts to utilize his "psych degree")
>>>
>>> Snit, your sock puppet isn't fooling anybody.
>>
>> Show where Steve Carroll is my sock. Or Rhino Plastee. You have now
>> claimed both are... and you are wrong on both accounts.
No answer. Interesting. OK, you cannot support that claim of yours. Of
course not... it is absurd.
>>>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
>>>> anything?
>>>
>>> His point is clear.
>>
>> So what do you think it is?
>
> It's in what you snipped out.
Not that I can see... so what do you think his point is? Steve refuses to
say what he really believes... he just lashes out with hate-filled drivel.
>>>> Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the features of
>>>> incest?
>>>
>>> Tim never said anything like that.
>>
>> <a3911e26-a220-4b6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
>> -----
>> by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
>> -----
>>
>> Clearly he did.
>>
>>>> Do you agree sex and incest are identical?
>>>
>>> Neither Steve nor Tim said they were.
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec498419>
>>
>> Clearly Tim did.
>
> No he didn't.
OK, I have shown in the Google record that he did and you say he did not.
What do you base your disagreement on? Anything?
>>>> Where di you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said?
>>>
>>> In the same things your current sock puppet is misrepresenting what Tim
>>> said, Snit.
>>
>> Empty accusations get you nowhere.
>> ...
>
> I haven't made any of those.
I quoted them. As noted: you cannot show that Rhino and Steve are my
puppets because they are not. I am not like Steve, I do not have a whole
set of names. Here are some of his:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
The ones with asterisks he has admitted to at one time or another. The
others have been shown to be the case elsewhere.
>>> Your game seems to think about incest by putting words into other
>>> people's
>>> mouths about the subject.
>>
>> What words do you think I put into who's mouth?
>
> The ones you made up.
But you cannot find a single example. This is getting boring. Typical of
trolls: you spew accusations you cannot support... then just dodge. Time to
put up or shut up.
As if you will do either. No chance.
>> If you mean the above words
>> shown in the Google record, how did I get Google in on the deception?
>
> The words are not in the Google record the way you say they are, other in
> the places where you wrote them and claimed that someone else said that.
So you say with no evidence. I call BS on that. Sorry... you will have to
actually show evidence.
But you cannot. Not now, not ever. You simply are wrong... as you know.
But spew those accusations!
...
Me
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> gjdvs2$ifj$1...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 1:21 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> And why did you whine that the link Snit said was to his post was
>>>> what he said it was?
>>>
>>> He didn't.
> ...
>> Snit quoted Tim you fuck nugget.
>>
>>
> And gave message IDs / Links.
>
> Yeah... Steve and "Me" and Tim Adams insist that I somehow altered the
> Google record to support my claims.
Quote either of us insisting that, and I don't mean a quote of yourself
claiming we said that.
Snit
12/30/08 4:51 PM:
I quote the Google record of Tim's posts and you both say that I made up the
quotes. The *only* way this is possible is if you believe I altered the
Google record.
So how do you think I did so... or do you rescind your denial that I quoted
Tim accurately?
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Tommy Troll
> In article
> <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
> > > pervert.
>
> > > Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
> > > walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>
> > Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
> > trivial. A simple example will suffice:
>
> > Empty set: All of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
> > concept of a windowed OS.
>
> > Now, try to make a subset of that set. You can't, it's a logical
> > contradiction. Hell, that was high school math in my day, they
> > probably teach in 1st grade now.
>
> > Think of it this way. Two sets are equal if they contain the same
> > elements. Since the only set that can be made from an empty set is
> > another empty set all empty sets must be equal. For the formal proof
> > see:
>
> >http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm/Unit1Module1/Unit1Mod1.html
>
> Wow.
>
> You can't even check that your source actually agrees with what you
> claim:
>
> "Exercise #7 above illustrates a general fact about subsets:
>
> Every set is a subset of itself."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> IOW, despite your pontificating about how elementary this all is for
> you, you got it completely wrong.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should have said "proper subset". A proper subset of a set is a
subset that is strictly contained in the set and so necessarily
excludes at least one member of that set . The empty set is therefore
a proper subset of any nonempty set. Also, since the empty set has no
members there is no empty set that can contain one less member than an
empty set.
Tommy Troll
> On Dec 30, 10:05 am, "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> tried to misrepresent my position the way he has above. The stuff I
> > >>> was talking about doesn't neatly fit into set theory. Snit argued
> > >>> that someone was guilty while simultaneously stating that he had no
> > >>> proof at all that the person was guilty... zilch... nada... 0%
> > >>> proof. Anyone with a working brain know that's not really an
> > >>> "argument", at all... it's merely an unsupported opinion and it has
> > >>> nothing to do with math of any kind... which is why Snit brought
> > >>> math up (in a failed attempt to obfuscate the obvious).
>
> > >> that even mean? How do you measure it?
>
> > > I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
> > > himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
> > > evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
> > > times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated that
> > > he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not offer proof "
> > > and then started babbling about math (a thing he is still doing) when
> > > I pointed out the absurdity of his position. That sockpuppets and
> > > shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets is pretty funny;)
>
> > > But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
> > You talk about percentages
>
> 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
> was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
> realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
> says... it does not offer proof. This doesn't require a percentage
> number attached to it... but since Snit decided to address it on such
> an absurd level I obliged him by pointing to the reality he is *still*
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lack of proof is an absolute. It's a 0 or non-0 state. On or off.
No in between. Why the fuck does he do that?
Alan Baker
<68a9f96c-2213-4026...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Tommy Troll <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:45áam, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > áTommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 29, 12:56ápm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > > <http://abstrusegoose.com/96>
> >
> > > > Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
> >
> > > > á á áI gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
> > > > á á áwould not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
> >
> > > > á á áBut zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
> > > > á á áas you have said it would!
> >
> > > > á á áyour delusion is that something that owes its very existence
> > > > á á áto the fact that it contains information can in fact be
> > > > á á á...empty!
> >
> > > > á á áwhether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
> > > > á á áthe answer actually is
> >
> > > > á á áit makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
> > > > á á ábecause the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
> >
> > > > á á áNow research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
> >
> > > > And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
> > > > concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
> >
> > > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1cbbac8c640..
> > > > .>
> > > > á á -----
> > > > á á In a different notation, you are claiming:
> > > > á á á á Lack of proof á = á áDoubt
> > > > á á á á Doubt á á á á á = á áValid Refutation
> > > > á á á á Lack of proof á <> á Valid Refutation
> > > > á á If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid
> > > > á á Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
> > > > á á á á A = áB
> > > > á á á á B = áC
> > > > á á á á A <> C
> > > > á á I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my
> > > > á á comments there ... you will need to refute the idea that A =
> > > > á á C in the math, above. And even then, you will have refuted
> > > > á á those comments, not the argument in question."
> >
> > > > á á I did not mean that as a challenge. áLet me be clear, you
> > > > á á will not be able to prove that A <> C. áIt is hilarious to
> > > > á á see you try, and it will be just as fun to watch you try to
> > > > á á weasel out of this one.
> > > > á á -----
> >
> > > > And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
> > > > features
> > > > of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
> > > > pervert.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus
> > > > with
> > > > walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
> >
> > > Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
> > > or that a set with no elements cannot spawn a subset. áThat is so
> > > trivial. áA simple example will suffice:
> >
> > > Empty set: áAll of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
> > > concept of a windowed OS.
> >
> > > Now, try to make a subset of that set. áYou can't, it's a logical
> > > contradiction. áHell, that was high school math in my day, they
> > > probably teach in 1st grade now.
> >
> > > Think of it this way. áTwo sets are equal if they contain the same
> > > elements. áSince the only set that can be made from an empty set is
> > > another empty set all empty sets must be equal. áFor the formal proof
> > > see:
> >
> > >http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm/Unit1Module1/Unit1Mod1.html
> >
> > Wow.
> >
> > You can't even check that your source actually agrees with what you
> > claim:
> >
> > "Exercise #7 above illustrates a general fact about subsets:
> >
> > Every set is a subset of itself."
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > IOW, despite your pontificating about how elementary this all is for
> > you, you got it completely wrong.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted
> > text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I should have said "proper subset". A proper subset of a set is a
> subset that is strictly contained in the set and so necessarily
> excludes at least one member of that set . The empty set is therefore
> a proper subset of any nonempty set. Also, since the empty set has no
> members there is no empty set that can contain one less member than an
> empty set.
Yes you should have. If you're going to try and throw around technical
knowledge, it behooves you to be technically correct.
:-)
Tommy Troll
> Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 1:45 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > On Dec 29, 12:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > > > <http://abstrusegoose.com/96>
>
> > > > > Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
>
> > > > > it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>
>
> > > > > And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
> > > > > concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
>
> > > > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1cbbac8c640..
> > > > > .>
> > > > > In a different notation, you are claiming:
> > > > > Doubt = Valid Refutation
> > > > > Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> > > > > B = C
> > > > > A <> C
>
> > > > > see you try, and it will be just as fun to watch you try to
>
> > > > > And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
> > > > > features
> > > > > of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
> > > > > pervert.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus
> > > > > with
> > > > > walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>
> > > > Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
>
> > > > Empty set: All of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
> > > > concept of a windowed OS.
>
> > > > contradiction. Hell, that was high school math in my day, they
> > > > probably teach in 1st grade now.
>
> > > > elements. Since the only set that can be made from an empty set is
> > > > another empty set all empty sets must be equal. For the formal proof
It's been 42 years since I finished my undergrad minor in math and 39
years since it took my exams in my PhD minors in econometrics and
mathematical economics. After spending most of my career in the
private sector working in a non-academic environment I'm surprised I
remember as much as I do! Damn, that feels good.
:)
Alan Baker
<bad2395f-c781-43f2...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Tommy Troll <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
And that's my point.
You came off with: "I can't believe you could get something so
elementary wrong" and then got it wrong, yourself.
I little more humility would have been better.
Snit
3c79944b-ebed-4a1a...@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on
12/30/08 5:17 PM:
>>>> But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>>
>>> You talk about percentages
>>
>> Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he had
>> a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of
>> 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
>> was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
>> realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
>> says... it does not offer proof. This doesn't require a percentage
>> number attached to it... but since Snit decided to address it on such
>> an absurd level I obliged him by pointing to the reality he is *still*
>> trying to avoid. Of course, you are already aware of all of this;)- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Lack of proof is an absolute. It's a 0 or non-0 state. On or off.
> No in between. Why the fuck does he do that?
When you are talking about absolute proof either you have it or you do not.
There is no difference between a switch being 100% off and off 100%. Steve
says I have a problem differentiating between the two concepts... yup. I
do. So does anyone who understands basic logic. Still, I hope to see his
explanation... someone be sure to quote it if he actually grows a backbone
and tries to support his claims and does not just do his normal tap dance as
he runs.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
Snit
12/30/08 5:15 PM:
> On Dec 30, 1:45áam, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>> áTommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 12:56ápm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> <http://abstrusegoose.com/96>
>>
>>>> Wally... you would be in big, big trouble.
>>
>>>> á á áI gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
>>>> á á áwould not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
>>
>>>> á á áBut zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
>>>> á á áas you have said it would!
>>
>>>> á á áyour delusion is that something that owes its very existence
>>>> á á áto the fact that it contains information can in fact be
>>>> á á á...empty!
>>
>>>> á á áwhether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
>>>> á á áthe answer actually is
>>
>>>> á á áit makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>>>> á á ábecause the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>>>> á á áNow research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
>>
>>>> And Steve Carroll would be, too, given his complete bafflement over the
>>>> concepts of proper and improper subsets... and even worse:
>>
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1cbbac8c640...>
>>>> á á -----
>>>> á á In a different notation, you are claiming:
>>>> á á á á Lack of proof á = á áDoubt
>>>> á á á á Doubt á á á á á = á áValid Refutation
>>>> á á á á Lack of proof á <> á Valid Refutation
>>>> á á If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid
>>>> á á Refutation" = C, your argument looks like:
>>>> á á á á A = áB
>>>> á á á á B = áC
>>>> á á á á A <> C
>>>> á á I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my
>>>> á á comments there ... you will need to refute the idea that A =
>>>> á á C in the math, above. And even then, you will have refuted
>>>> á á those comments, not the argument in question."
>>
>>>> á á I did not mean that as a challenge. áLet me be clear, you
>>>> á á will not be able to prove that A <> C. áIt is hilarious to
>>>> á á see you try, and it will be just as fun to watch you try to
>>>> á á weasel out of this one.
>>>> á á -----
>>
>>>> And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
>>>> features
>>>> of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really just a
>>>> pervert.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
>>>> walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>>
>>> Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty set,
>>> or that a set with no elements cannot spawn a subset. áThat is so
>>> trivial. áA simple example will suffice:
>>
>>> Empty set: áAll of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
>>> concept of a windowed OS.
>>
>>> Now, try to make a subset of that set. áYou can't, it's a logical
>>> contradiction. áHell, that was high school math in my day, they
>>> probably teach in 1st grade now.
>>
>>> Think of it this way. áTwo sets are equal if they contain the same
>>> elements. áSince the only set that can be made from an empty set is
>>> another empty set all empty sets must be equal. áFor the formal proof
>>> see:
>>
>>> http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm/Unit1Module1/Unit1Mod1.html
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You can't even check that your source actually agrees with what you
>> claim:
>>
>> "Exercise #7 above illustrates a general fact about subsets:
>>
>> Every set is a subset of itself."
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> IOW, despite your pontificating about how elementary this all is for
>> you, you got it completely wrong.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Baker
>> Vancouver, British Columbia
>> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted text
>> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I should have said "proper subset". A proper subset of a set is a
> subset that is strictly contained in the set and so necessarily
> excludes at least one member of that set . The empty set is therefore
> a proper subset of any nonempty set. Also, since the empty set has no
> members there is no empty set that can contain one less member than an
> empty set.
>
You have just shown you understand set theory more than Wally, Tim Adams,
and Steve Carroll. Then again, my 3 year old does, too. :)
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
zara
"Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bad2395f-c781-43f2...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
This is good. You're answering a guy, who doesn't even know what a subset
is.
Snit
1QA6l.561$9M3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net on 12/30/08 7:38 PM:
Read the quotes from Wally, Adams and Carroll. Seriously, they are
completely lost in all topics dealing with math and logic. I am still
waiting for Steve Carroll to say what the difference between a binary system
being 100% false and being false 100%:
In the context of absolute proof:
Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early
on he had a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of
proof and a lack of 100% proof...
LOL! I do hope Steve decides to "educate" CSMA on this... keeping in mind
he is not talking about support, as in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt",
but proof as in absolutes.
Wally
c818c716-1e11-4ed4...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com, "Steve
Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Said the guy who claimed that his "evidence" didn't contain one true
> statement from which something else can necessarily follow.
It's also worth revisiting a few statements that indicate just how Snit
thinks (or doesnšt think)...
1) (I particularly like this quote)
"You did state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I
pointed out a a partial part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with
that... so you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
Note* "a partial part"-Snit
"when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree with
parts of it."-Snit
WTF? Does the demented fool not understand what is meant by "at all"?
2) "I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
Nuff said about his views on that!
3) "Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."
I did try and get Snit to clarify that disturbing comment....
"There are actually two questions Snit, but you can ignore the second if
your answer to the first is NO!
It has been reported in this ng that you said.....
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."
Question one...
Did you actually say that?
If So...
Question two ...
Can you indicate any group or individual that has the opinion that they
would have less of a legal problem with having sex with a corpse, if they
had obtained prior consent.......except for you of course!"-Wally
Of course I am *still* waiting for Snits answer!
4) "Sex crimes are not synonymous with sex."-Snit
I have to wonder just what he thinks they are synonymous with?
Of course Snit *will* claim that sex crimes cannot be synonymous with sex
because not all sexual activity involves criminal activity, just as he
states that incest cannot be synonymous with sex because not all sex
involves incest!
The demented fool sees no alternative but that synonymous *must* mean to be
the same as or equivalent to!
Which explains his weird notion that....
"If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
Even though it has been explained to him that ....
note:... Cambridge..Synonymous...
"If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the
two things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests
the other:
Oscar Wilde's name is synonymous with wit."
When Oscar Wilde is the subject then he and wit are considered synonymous,
but if wit were the subject then Oscar Wilde need not even be a
consideration wrt wit! It is of course the subject matter that is the
determining factor in any synonymous relationship!
In exactly the same way as if incest were the subject then it and sex must
be considered synonymous, But if sex were the subject then incest need not
even be a consideration.
I am confident that most people can think of something that *is* synonymous
with something else, whereas the reverse need not be true! .... Except Snit
of course so perhaps most normal people would be more accurate!
"If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A"-Snit
LOL
Wally
c3f63532-035d-4a0d...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Steve
Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he had
> a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of
> was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
> realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
> says... it does not offer proof.
Just as by saying when someone does not agree with something "at all" means
just that .... They don't agree with it *at all*! ...... except to Snit to
him it means....
"You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
.....when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it."-Snit
ROTFL!
Wally
<m...@mine.com> wrote:
Snit actually stated....
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
How that would lessen the legal implication of such a distasteful act is
beyond me .... But to Snit it clearly would!
Snit
C5812727.EE96%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 9:41 PM:
What is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone saying they
agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
By all means, Wally, explain away!
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
Snit
...
> 4) "Sex crimes are not synonymous with sex."-Snit
>
> I have to wonder just what he thinks they are synonymous with?
Sex crimes are a minority proper subset of sex, and thus the two concepts
are not synonymous.
Of course, you have directly claimed:
> Sex and incest, Wally, are not synonymous
Quite right! exactly as I said, but incest and sex are!
incest and sex are synonymous
I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are synonymous!
And your co-troll Tim Adams has claimed:
Tim Adams, providing a quoted definition of "synonymous":
-----
syn·on·y·mous adj
1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in
the same language, or being an alternative name for
somebody or something
2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by
another word
-----
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! He was lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
Gross! Ok, some questions for you:
Do you think the two concepts are "synonymous"? I do not - nor
does any non-pervert.
Do you think the two concepts are "identical"? I do not - nor
does any non-pervert.
Do you think "sex MUST include all of the features of incest"?
I do not - nor does any non-pervert.
There is no doubt you and Tim Adams are perverts - or, at the very least,
have claimed to be.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5812727.EE96%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 9:41 PM:
>
>> On 31/12/08 2:26 AM, in article
>> c3f63532-035d-4a0d...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Steve
>> Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he had
>>> a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of
>>> 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
>>> was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
>>> realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
>>> says... it does not offer proof.
>>
>> Just as by saying when someone does not agree with something "at all" means
>> just that .... They don't agree with it *at all*! ...... except to Snit to
>> him it means....
>>
>> "You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
>> .....when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
>> with parts of it."-Snit
>>
>> ROTFL!
>
> What is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone saying they
> agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
What you 'noted' was as usual at odds with reality Snit .... Your own words
prove it ...
"You did state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I
pointed out a a partial part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with
that... so you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
1) I stated that I did not agree with it at all!
2) You claimed to have pointed out a "partial part" <snigger> of it!
3) I had stated that I did not agree with that which is totally consistent
with my statement at (1. (hopefully you are lucid enough to understand that
"at all" refers to *ALL* which includes any and all "partial parts" of it?
And yet your conclusion is....
"you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
Having stated categorically that firstly I did not agree with the "whole" of
it and then stating that I did not agree with a "partial part" of the whole
that you mentioned .... how the hell did your demented mind come up with...
"you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
ROTFL!
(enter Snit sock puppet ... Stage left!)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C58120D8.EE94%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 9:15 PM:
>
> ...
>> 4) "Sex crimes are not synonymous with sex."-Snit
>>
>> I have to wonder just what he thinks they are synonymous with?
>
> Sex crimes are a minority proper subset of sex, and thus the two concepts
> are not synonymous.
LOL
Snit
>> What is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone saying they
>> agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
>
> What you 'noted' was as usual at odds with reality Snit ....
What is at "odds with reality" to note the absurdity of someone saying they
agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
> Your own words prove it ...
Nope. And repeating the quote where I note the absurdity of someone saying
they agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"
does not help your case.
>
> "You did state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I
> pointed out a a partial part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with
> that... so you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
> "at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
>
> 1) I stated that I did not agree with it at all!
>
> 2) You claimed to have pointed out a "partial part" <snigger> of it!
>
> 3) I had stated that I did not agree with that which is totally consistent
> with my statement at (1. (hopefully you are lucid enough to understand that
> "at all" refers to *ALL* which includes any and all "partial parts" of it?
So where is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone saying they
agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
> And yet your conclusion is....
>
> "you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
> "at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
And you did. Which was absurd. So where is your problem with what *I*
said?
> Having stated categorically that firstly I did not agree with the "whole" of
> it and then stating that I did not agree with a "partial part" of the whole
> that you mentioned .... how the hell did your demented mind come up with...
>
> "you have shown that when you say you do not agree with something
> "at all" you might agree with parts of it."-Snit
You are running from the question:
What is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone
saying they agree with parts of something they claimed to not
agree with "at all"?
Come on, Wally... stop running.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> (enter Snit sock puppet ... Stage left!)
Er? Ah, a part of your running.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Snit
Ah, you disagree. Yup... you think the two concepts are synonymous. Ick.
I am not interested in you going round and round spewing the same perverted
garbage and running at every opportunity to your irrelevant use of
metaphorical language (you know, when you repeatedly reference metaphorical
uses of the word "synonymous").
Do you have something *new* to add to the debate... or are you just spewing
ancient BS to run from the fact that you made a complete fool of yourself
Again.
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5813797.EEB5%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 10:52 PM:
>
>>> What is your problem with my noting the absurdity of someone saying they
>>> agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
>>
>> What you 'noted' was as usual at odds with reality Snit ....
>
> What is at "odds with reality" to note the absurdity of someone saying they
> agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?
I do hope you are sitting down Snit because what follows will come as a big
shock to you.....
Comfortable?
It is at odds with reality when what you claim to have noted never actually
happened Snit!
For example in all of these exchanges you have only shown what I clearly
*disagreed* with......
1) "You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".-Snit
2) "Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you claimed
you did not agree with that..."-Snit
So where the hell am I to be seen agreeing with any of it Snit?
"What is at "odds with reality" to note the absurdity of someone saying they
agree with parts of something they claimed to not agree with "at all"?"-Snit
*That* statement clearly is at odds with reality Snit as 1) and 2) above
prove!
Sorry but I did warn you!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C581383A.EEB7%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 10:54 PM:
>
>> On 31/12/08 1:59 PM, in article C5804A50.E7728%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C58120D8.EE94%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 9:15 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> 4) "Sex crimes are not synonymous with sex."-Snit
>>>>
>>>> I have to wonder just what he thinks they are synonymous with?
>>>
>>> Sex crimes are a minority proper subset of sex, and thus the two concepts
>>> are not synonymous.
>>
>> LOL
>
> Ah, you disagree. Yup... you think the two concepts are synonymous. Ick.
My entire point all this time has been that incest and sex are synonymous,
whereas sex and incest need not be, and in all likelihood would not be
considered synonymous! yet you still don't get it Snit! .... Amazing! :-)
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:27 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-5AAD66.07585230122...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> > 12/30/08 5:58 AM:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >>>> And Tim Adams with his claim that sex, to him, must contain all the
> > >>>> features of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he is really
> > >>>> just
> > >>>> a pervert.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > I see michael glasser... also continue to lie about me.
> >
> > > In fact I mentioned several months ago that snit is such a pervert, he
> > > constantly keeps bringing up sex and incest in his posting - a claim he
> > > denied, yet here it is again. so typical of michael.
> >
> > <a3911e26-a220-4b6c-be6f-10a14beb7...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> > -----
> > by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> > -----
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec49...>
> >
> > And in that post you claim that sex, to you, is "identical" to incest
>
> Here is what Tim claimed in "that post":
>
> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore they ARE
> identical
> when presented in that order."
>
> > (and show you are clueless about the fact that if A=B then B=A)
>
> Why is what Tim said
>
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50e74d51bff0...>
> >
> > And where I go onto much more detail, and offer more links and message IDs.
> > You clearly have claimed that sex, from your perspective, is "identical" to
> > incest and that sex, by the definition *you* use, "MUST include all of the
> > features of incest."
> >
> > And yet, even though the Google record and I are clearly and unambiguously
> > in agreement, you claim we are somehow lying. So, Tim, how did I get
> > Google
> > to join me in this alleged lie?
>
> I just did "get Google" to join in by quoting what Tim actually said,
> (as opposed to your claim of what he said) and it's showing that you
> are taking things out of context... again. By the way, the second of
> your 2 links led to a post by you... misrepresenting what Tim "said"
> yet again Why do you still believe people are as stupid as you need
> them to be?
>
> (snip Snit's additional, feeble efforts to utilize his "psych degree")
Poor michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, having to snip and paste
mere snippets of what was really written to try an make his point. Now he's
running around csma in a posting frenzy hoping people don't see his lies.
michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, was the person that claimed
'Incest is a subset of sex' and when the full meaning of that claim was pointed
out to him, he ran away like a scared rabbit.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim Adams
"Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
> anything? Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the
> features of incest?
That's michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, claim, but then you knew
that already, didn't you.
> Do you agree sex and incest are identical? Where di
> you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said? And why did you whine that the
> link Snit said was to his post was what he said it was? Are you just
> fucking insane?
Tim Adams
wrote:
After all these years and michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, still
can't understand that simple concept, yet he claims that incest is a subset of
sex. proving he is indeed a pervert
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-70148D.09...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
12/31/08 7:13 AM:
> michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, was the person that claimed
> 'Incest is a subset of sex' and when the full meaning of that claim was
> pointed
> out to him, he ran away like a scared rabbit.
Please stop lying about me.
Tim Adams, providing a quoted definition of "synonymous":
-----
syn搗n暄搶ous adj
1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in
the same language, or being an alternative name for
somebody or something
2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by
another word
-----
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! He was lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
There is no doubt you claimed to be a pervert.
--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
Snit
12/31/08 7:15 AM:
>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
>> anything? Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the
>> features of incest?
>
> That's michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert, claim, but then you
> knew
> that already, didn't you.
Tim Adams, providing a quoted definition of "synonymous":
-----
syn·on·y·mous adj
1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in
the same language, or being an alternative name for
somebody or something
2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by
another word
-----
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! He was lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
--
But what if the answer is in the box?
Snit
12/31/08 7:28 AM:
> After all these years and michael glasser, the prescott computer pervert,
> still can't understand that simple concept, yet he claims that incest is a
> subset of sex. proving he is indeed a pervert
Tim Adams, providing a quoted definition of "synonymous":
-----
syn搗n暄搶ous adj
1. meaning the same, or almost the same, as another word in
the same language, or being an alternative name for
somebody or something
2. having an implication similar to the idea expressed by
another word
-----
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! He was lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying something
that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to the post.
But you won't.
My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at all" then they
should not claim to agree with parts of it.
And you just want to argue. Oh well.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Snit
> On 31/12/08 3:03 PM, in article C5805942.E7745%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C581383A.EEB7%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 10:54 PM:
>>
>>> On 31/12/08 1:59 PM, in article C5804A50.E7728%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>>> C58120D8.EE94%Wa...@wally.world.net on 12/30/08 9:15 PM:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> 4) "Sex crimes are not synonymous with sex."-Snit
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to wonder just what he thinks they are synonymous with?
>>>>
>>>> Sex crimes are a minority proper subset of sex, and thus the two concepts
>>>> are not synonymous.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> Ah, you disagree. Yup... you think the two concepts are synonymous. Ick.
>
> My entire point all this time has been that incest and sex are synonymous,
Right: you are pointing out you are a pervert. And I agree. Ok.
> whereas sex and incest need not be, and in all likelihood would not be
> considered synonymous! yet you still don't get it Snit! .... Amazing! :-)
Synonymy is a reciprocal association (except, perhaps, in an irrelevant
metaphorical sense that you run to... and still show you are a pervert).
How many years have you been showing you do no understand this simple
concept?
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/~uruetsch/diss/poset.pdf
-----
The semantic relation of hyponymy is an example: synonymy can be defined as
symmetrical hyponymy (A is synonymous to B iff A is a hyponym of B and B is
a hyponym of A).
-----
http://www.phil.pu.ru/depts/12/RN/Relations.html
-----
Princeton WN and EWN the first way is adopted: łtwo expressions are
synonymous in a linguistic context C if the substitution of one for the
other in C does not alter the truth value˛ [Miller et al., 1990].
...
Synonymy is a symmetric relation, i.e. if A is synonymous to B, B is
synonymous to A.
-----
http://depts.washington.edu/lingweb/ling200/lect17_semantics1.pdf
-----
If A is synonymous with B,
* A and B mean the same thing, A can be paraphrased by B
-----
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=401369
------
Are you thinking of Synonymous?
Instead of saying A is a synonym of B you can say A is synonymous with B.
-----
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/522/522Spring1999/Lecture5.pdf
-----
A is synonymous with B if A and B have the same meaning
-----
http://snipurl.com/hgxh
-----
A is synonymous with B if A entails B and B entails A.
-----
http://www.iptc.org/pdl.php?fn=DRAFT-NAR_1.0-spec-NMDF-BusReq_34.pdf
-----
Synonyms are {scheme, code} pairs that refer to the same concept. An
example is "cemetery" and "graveyard". Synonymy is a symmetric
relationship, which means that if A is synonymous with B, then B is also
synonymous with A.
-----
Do you see the idiocy of claiming you disagree with all of those sources!
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Steve Carroll
> >>>>>>>>> all the features of incest might also struggle a bit... but
> >>>>>>>>> maybe he is really just a pervert.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor
> >>>>>>>>> plated walrus with walnut paneling and an all leather
> >>>>>>>>> interior.
>
> >>>>>>>> Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an
> >>>>>>>> empty set,
>
> >>>>>>> he tried to misrepresent my position the way he has above. The
> >>>>>>> stuff I was talking about doesn't neatly fit into set theory.
> >>>>>>> Snit argued that someone was guilty while simultaneously
> >>>>>>> stating that he had no proof at all that the person was
> >>>>>>> guilty... zilch... nada... 0% proof. Anyone with a working
> >>>>>>> brain know that's not really an "argument", at all... it's
> >>>>>>> merely an unsupported opinion and it has nothing to do with
> >>>>>>> math of any kind... which is why Snit brought math up (in a
> >>>>>>> failed attempt to obfuscate the obvious).
>
> >>>>>> What the fuck are you babbling about? 0% proof? What the fuck
> >>>>>> does that even mean? How do you measure it?
>
> >>>>> I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
> >>>>> himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
> >>>>> evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
> >>>>> times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated
> >>>>> that he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not
> >>>>> offer proof " and then started babbling about math (a thing he is
> >>>>> still doing) when I pointed out the absurdity of his position.
> >>>>> That sockpuppets and shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets
> >>>>> is pretty funny;)
>
> >>>>> But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
>
> >>> Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early on he
> >>> had a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of proof and a
> >>> lack of 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when
> >>> he saw he was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and
> >>> honorable people, I realize that the phrase does not offer proof "
> >>> require a percentage number attached to it... but since Snit
> >>> decided to address it on such an absurd level I obliged him by
> >>> pointing to the reality he is *still* trying to avoid. Of course,
> >>> you are already aware of all of this;)
>
> >> disproof?
>
> > Allegations of guilt require a disproof? LOL! Sure... you're not a
> > Snit puppet/shill;)
>
> >> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference
> >> between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
>
> > LOL!
>
> > Snit, you're a riot;)
>
> So when you accuse Snit of wrong doing no contrary evidence is needed to
> disprove you. Thanks for your admission asshole.
The "wrong doing" is this case has plenty of evidence... all of which
you just so conveniently (and expectedly) ignored.
Steve Carroll
> >> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> >> gjdkd9$42...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 10:05 AM:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>>> What the fuck are you babbling about? 0% proof? What the fuck does
> >>>>> that even mean? How do you measure it?
>
> >>>> I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
> >>>> himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
> >>>> evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
> >>>> times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated
> >>>> that he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not
> >>>> offer proof " and then started babbling about math (a thing he is
> >>>> still doing) when I pointed out the absurdity of his position.
> >>>> That sockpuppets and shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets
> >>>> is pretty funny;)
>
> >>>> But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
> >>> talk about math like you do not even know a percentage is a
> >>> mathematical term. You are fucking insane.
>
> >> It boils down to:
>
> >> * Steve Carroll has no idea what he is talking about.
>
> > I know enough to know that you alleged guilt of someone and stated
> > that you were convinced by "evidence" that you admitted "does not
> > offer proof". You even defined the word "proof" when you made this
> > statement:
>
> > ""Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
> > formal
> > series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
> > necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
> > points
> > to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
> > a
> > logical sense, proof."
>
> > Here you are seen admitting that you do not have one true thing from
> > which something else can necessarily follow. Of course, you are also
> > absurdly claiming that your "evidence" "strongly supports" your
> > "conclusion". Only you would claim that in the absence of *any* proof
> > at all... that's 0% proof for you math hounds;)
>
> >> * Steve Carroll repeats his same Argument from Ignorance over and
> >> over, where he pretends a lack of proof = a refutation. It does not.
>
> > The "Argument from Ignorance" is all yours:
>
> > "The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam
> > ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a
> > logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only
> > because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has
> > not been proven true".
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> > This is exactly what you are doing... you are claiming that you have
> > not offered *any* proof for your argument while simultaneously
> > claiming that the argument is true. Arguments that allege guilt
> > require some form of proof for people to take the argument seriously.
> > Having *no* proof means you don't really have an argument... nothing
> > tricky about it. Face it, Snit, what you are calling your 'strongly
> > supported argument' is nothing but an opinion based on not a single
> > true thing from which something else could necessarily follow... and
> > no amount of puppets/shills can help you out if it;)
>
> >> * Steve Carroll pretends a lack of proof is the same as a lack of
> >> support... it is not.
>
> > Translation: Steve Carroll realizes that a lack of proof means *no*
> > proof and *no* proof means no argument.
>
> > Read the definition of an "Argument from Ignorance" I just pointed
> > to... or better, get someone to read it to you;)
>
> >> * Steve Carroll conflates the ideas of a proof as used in absolute
> >> terms with the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which
> >> is not about absolutes.
>
> > There is no need to talk about "absolutes" other than the fact that
> > you admitted you had' *no* proof at all... that's pretty "absolute".
> > Why is this so difficult for you, Snit? ROFL!
>
> >> * Steve Carroll has been called on this many times by many people,
>
> > Point to these "people"... I'll be glad to explain my position and
> > yours to them, you know... being that you don't seem to understand
> > either of them;)
>
> >> * Steve Carroll was never able to refute the arguments people made
> >> against Bush and he freaked out
>
> > Translation: Steve Carroll correctly pointed to the fact that Snit
> > claimed he is convinced a person is guilty based on "evidence" that
> > Snit readily admits does not offer a single true thing from which
> > something else can necessarily follow.
>
> >> ago.
>
> > Why do you *still* believe that anyone needs a 'defense' against your
> > delusions? I could use this exact same type of argument and
> > claim that Bush is innocent because no one has successfully prosecuted
> > him. Oh wait... that actually *is* the case. LOL!
>
> > (snip Snit's other delusions)
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of being
> guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to support the
> accusation?
The argument was the same as his evidence according to Snit... which,
as you can plainly see, contains no proof at all, as admitted by Snit.
> Where was the counter to that arguement?
I just presented the effective counter to the "argument" that you ,
uh..,Snit put forth... all the counter his "argument" deserved.
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So what was being proved or supported or whatever and what was the
> >>> disproof?
>
> >> Allegations of guilt require a disproof? LOL! Sure... you're not a
> >> Snit puppet/shill;)
>
> >>> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference
> >>> between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
>
> >> LOL!
>
> >> Snit, you're a riot;)
>
> > So when you accuse Snit of wrong doing no contrary evidence is needed to
> > disprove you. Thanks for your admission asshole.
>
'
They obviously are where you are concerned.
You admit your evidence contains no proof at all regarding Bush's
guilt. OTOH... the google archive contains concrete proof that would
make it evident to any reasonable, sane, honest and honorable person
that you have done much of what has been alleged by others on usenet.
These conditions both exist,yet, you call Bush guilty and yourself
innocent.
> no amount of evidence is acceptable to Steve...
How can a condition where even you admit there is not one true thing
from which something else can necessarily follow lead to any kind of
conclusion regarding guilt, let alone the one you've reached? You seem
to forget that the purpose of evidence is to make something evident.
> Bush has not been convicted of a crime so no amount of evidence
> will suffice to show his guilt
Said the guy who admittedly presented "no amount of evidence" (that's
0%) that contained a single shred of what he himself defined as
"proof". If "evidence" lacks proof then it doesn't make anything
evident for people doing the looking.
> ... but Clinton can be guilty *contrary* to
> the findings of a court... and I can be guilty
It's ell known that Clinton entered into something similar to a plea
bargain and took a pretty severe penalty, though, not nearly as severe
as if he fought and lost (which he undoubtedly would have) without
making his deal. His actions make it reasonably 'evident' to those
doing the looking that he and his legal team knew he would be
convicted had he continued to fight. More importantly, the deal
Clinton struck involved him agreeing to admit that he gave misleading
testimony in the Paula Jones case... this essentially means he
admitted he was guilty, the DA made sure to get this in the deal.
Realistically, because of its inclusion, it's not truly a plea
bargain... it wasn't a declination (because the charges couldn't
stick) nor was it a referral (to civil).
> , so says Steve, based on his
> unsupported accusations.
So says reality as based on Clinton's actions. Apparently you are
unaware that the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional
Conduct was intent on disbarring Clinton over the perjury in the Jones
case. When Clinton said this:
"I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to
pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation
of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct because of
testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. The disbarment suit will
now be dismissed".
... he was referring to having given, under oath, misleading testimony
of a material nature.
I find it more than hilarious that yourdictionary.com uses Clinton as
an example:
"modifies a noun
deal: Outgoing President Bill Clinton has reached an eleventh hour
plea bargaining deal with prosecutors over his lying in court during
the Monica Lewinsky affair"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/plea-bargaining
> As I said: it all comes down to Steve being consumed by his hatred for my
> not worshipping is hero Bush.
Said the guy who denies any and all realities that stand in the way of
his delusions;)
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
> > What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of being
> > guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to support the
> > riddles and refuse to talk about anything? Snit has pointed to multiple
> > arguements against Bush and you are too fucking dishonest to admit you have
> > no counter.
>
> Steve Carroll has *no* argument to counter the evidence against Bush.
The "evidence" for which you admitted "does not offer proof"? Why
would anyone need an argument against such "evidence"? Poor Snit...
insanity has hit him hard;)
> None.
> So he runs to word games and to meta-debates.
Word games like using *your* definition of the word "proof" and *your*
admission that your "evidence" contained no proof".
Poor Snit;)
>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I had rescinded my argument
> against Bush and now am re-supporting it
Translation:
Snit now realizes that his original "argument", which was merely a
parroted opinion he got off the internet, failed.
(snip the rest of Snit's delusions)
Steve Carroll
> Snit wrote:
> > "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> > gjdogc$9a...@news.albasani.net on 12/30/08 11:15 AM:
>
> >> What the fuck are you talking about? You say he accused someone of
> >> being guilty? What was the accusation? What was the arguement to
> >> support the accusation? Where was the counter to that arguement?
> >> Why do you talk in riddles and refuse to talk about anything? Snit
> >> has pointed to multiple arguements against Bush and you are too
> >> fucking dishonest to admit you have no counter.
>
> > Steve Carroll has *no* argument to counter the evidence against Bush.
>
> > Steve is pushing with his BS. It would *still* be irrelevant...
> > Steve would still have failed to offer a refutation, all he would be
> > doing is saying that the argument he could not refute was not
> > consistently supported (and, keep in mind, his claim of even *that*
> > is clearly a lie).
>
> > Steve has no point to make... he is just consumed by his hatred.
>
> All of this is stupid. You said some things about Bush how long ago?
> Years? This pissed Steve off and you two are still arguing over it. Why?
Sure.. I'm "pissed" off because Snit admitted that his "argument"
against Bush is based on "evidence" that Snit freely admitted
contained not a single shred of "proof". LOL!
Steve Carroll
> Snit wrote:
> > "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
> >>>> So what was being proved or supported or whatever and what was the
> >>>> disproof?
>
> >>> Allegations of guilt require a disproof? LOL! Sure... you're not a
> >>> Snit puppet/shill;)
>
> >>>> And if you are talking about absolutes what is the difference
> >>>> between a 100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof?
>
> >>> LOL!
>
> >>> Snit, you're a riot;)
>
> >> So when you accuse Snit of wrong doing no contrary evidence is
> >> needed to disprove you. Thanks for your admission asshole.
>
> > acceptable to Steve... Bush has not been convicted of a crime so no
> > amount of evidence will suffice to show his guilt... but Clinton can
> > be guilty *contrary* to the findings of a court... and I can be
>
> > As I said: it all comes down to Steve being consumed by his hatred
> > for my not worshipping is hero Bush.
>
Said the guy who would like people to believe that *I* am "pissed
off". Stop projecting, Snit... it's not a pretty sight;)
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
(snip Snit's delusions)
> > All of this is stupid. You said some things about Bush how long ago?
> > Years? This pissed Steve off and you two are still arguing over it. Why?
>
> Steve is too hate-filled to let it go.
Said the guy who keeps bringing the same old things back up for people
to beat him over the head with reality about.
Steve Carroll
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:C57FBFCC.E75A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
>
>
> > "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post d0e8$495a697a$29...@news.teranews.com on
> > 12/30/08 11:33 AM:
>
> > ...
>
>
> > Show where Steve Carroll is my sock. Or Rhino Plastee. You have now
> > claimed both are... and you are wrong on both accounts.
>
> >>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
> >>> anything?
>
> >> His point is clear.
>
> > So what do you think it is?
>
> It's in what you snipped out.
>
>
>
> >>> incest?
>
>
> > -----
> > by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> > -----
>
> > Clearly he did.
>
>
>
>
> > Clearly Tim did.
>
> No he didn't.
>
>
> >> said, Snit.
>
> > Empty accusations get you nowhere.
> > ...
>
> I haven't made any of those.
>
> >> Your game seems to think about incest by putting words into other
> >> people's
> >> mouths about the subject.
>
> > What words do you think I put into who's mouth?
>
> The ones you made up.
>
> > If you mean the above words
> > shown in the Google record, how did I get Google in on the deception?
>
> The words are not in the Google record the way you say they are, other in
> the places where you wrote them and claimed that someone else said that.
>
> >> Aren't you the same guy who posted long threads debating whether or not
> >> it
> >> would be okay to have sex with a corpse as long as you got the person's
> >> permission while they were alive?
>
> > Nope.
>
> I sure hope not.
>
Your reply is just more "evidence" that people are not as stupid as
Snit obviously needs them to be.
Rhino Plastee
>>> Steve has no point to make... he is just consumed by his hatred.
>>
>> All of this is stupid. You said some things about Bush how long ago?
>> Years? This pissed Steve off and you two are still arguing over it.
>> Why?
>
> Sure.. I'm "pissed" off because Snit admitted that his "argument"
> against Bush is based on "evidence" that Snit freely admitted
> contained not a single shred of "proof". LOL!
Evidence is not the same as proof, asshole.
Rhino Plastee
What argument failed? You can not even answer that. What is the counter
that made it fail. You sure as fuck can not answer that.
Rhino Plastee
What arguement? What counter? You are so fucked up you have no idea what
the hell you are even talking abotu or who you are talking to.
Rhino Plastee
Yet you deny Bush is guilty contrary to all evidence. You are fucked in the
head.
Snit
>> Translation:
>>
>> Snit now realizes that his original "argument", which was merely a
>> parroted opinion he got off the internet, failed.
>>
>> (snip the rest of Snit's delusions)
>
> What argument failed? You can not even answer that. What is the counter
> that made it fail. You sure as fuck can not answer that.
Steve can neither point to the argument he is convinced is wrong nor point
to *any* counter evidence... all he can do is repeat his Argument from
Ignorance where he insists a lack of proof, no matter how much evidence, is
somehow, to him, a reasonable refutation.
It is idiotic. And he has been pushing this stupidity for years. He has
become completely consumed by his hatred.
Snit
Right, according to Steve Carroll, it is against the presumption of
innocence for someone to look at evidence and make an informed decision
about Bush and his wrong doing, but it is just fine for him to say Clinton
is guilty of crimes *contrary* to the findings of a court and for him to
spew accusation after accusation about me in a public forum... with his only
"evidence" being his claims and the quotes he scavenged and fabricated. Of
course, the quotes I scavenged about him he claims are irrelevant.
He has absurd and irrational double standards... he has let himself become
completely consumed by his hatred.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
Steve Carroll says it is:
"the concept known as 'evidence' DIRECTLY EQUATES TO PROOF"
- Steve Carroll
One of the things Steve does not understand (from someone with very
different views of me in other areas, but in this they are right on the
mark):
<http://john.pettigrew.org.uk/blog/archive/2005/10/16/proof_evidence_doubt_a
nd_decis>
-----
łProve˛ means łestablish beyond doubt˛ or łdemonstrate to be
true˛. In its strict sense, it really only applies within the
realm of mathematics. Only somewhere like that, where
everything is clear and unambiguous, is łproof˛ ever
possible. This means that łproof˛ relates to a logical
construct, showing that certain premises lead inexorably to a
certain conclusion. ...
When most people talk of łproof˛, they think that perhaps
science deals in proof, but it doesnąt. The bedrock of
science isnąt proof but evidence. Evidence is a piece of
information that supports or fails to support a theory.
-----
There is plenty of *evidence* that Bush is guilty, for example:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
And here:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
Steve Carroll *knows* he has no counter to these things, so he pushes an
Argument from Ignorance that a lack of proof, which is true in all
discussions about real-world events, is somehow a valid refutation.
Not even Steve Carroll can be so stupid as to really believe this any more.
Just like his buddy Wally cannot be so stupid as to think using an
irrelevant metaphorical usage of the word "synonymous" somehow makes his
comments about sex and incest any less perverse... they both know they have
dug themselves holes they cannot dig themselves out of... but both are never
going to admit to it. They simply are too filled with hatred (especially
Steve).
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Steve Carroll
> "Rhino Plastee" <no...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 9:27 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >>> teadams$2$0$0$3-5AAD66.07585230122...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net
> >>> on 12/30/08 5:58 AM:
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>>>>> the features of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he
> >>>>>>> is really just a pervert.
>
>
> >>>> I see michael glasser... also continue to lie about me.
>
> >>>> In fact I mentioned several months ago that snit is such a pervert,
> >>>> he constantly keeps bringing up sex and incest in his posting - a
> >>>> claim he denied, yet here it is again. so typical of michael.
>
> >>> -----
> >>> by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> >>> -----
>
>
> >>> And in that post you claim that sex, to you, is "identical" to incest
>
> >> Here is what Tim claimed in "that post":
>
> >> identical
>
> >>> (and show you are clueless about the fact that if A=B then B=A)
>
> >> Why is what Tim said
>
> >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50e74d51bff0...>
>
> >>> And where I go onto much more detail, and offer more links and
> >>> message IDs. You clearly have claimed that sex, from your
> >>> perspective, is "identical" to incest and that sex, by the
> >>> definition *you* use, "MUST include all of the features of incest."
>
> >>> And yet, even though the Google record and I are clearly and
> >>> unambiguously in agreement, you claim we are somehow lying. So, Tim,
> >>> how did I get Google to join me in this alleged lie?
>
> >> I just did "get Google" to join in by quoting what Tim actually said,
> >> (as opposed to your claim of what he said) and it's showing that you
> >> are taking things out of context... again. By the way, the second of
> >> your 2 links led to a post by you... misrepresenting what Tim "said"
> >> yet again Why do you still believe people are as stupid as you need
> >> them to be?
>
>
> > anything? Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the
> > features of incest? Do you agree sex and incest are identical? Where di
> > you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said? And why did you whine that the
> > link Snit said was to his post was what he said it was? Are you just
> > fucking insane?
>
> he agree with Tim Adams about sex and incest being identical? Well, sure,
> he *defends* Tim Adams when it is pointed out how perverted that claim is,
> but Steve will never say what his view is.
Snit just claimed:
1 - That I '*defend*' Tim Adams position about sex and incest.
Notably, Snit also just claimed:
2 - I that I "never say what" my "view" is on this topic,
Does Snit think people are stupid enough to believe garbage like this?
He obviously does because he keeps posting it.
Steve Carroll
> On Dec 30, 12:26 pm, Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>> the features of incest might also struggle a bit... but maybe he
> > > >>>>> is really just a pervert.
>
> > > >>>>> Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated
> > > >>>>> walrus with walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
>
> > > >>>> Wow, cool,,,somebody does not understand the concept of an empty
> > > >>>> set,
>
> > > >>> Snit is one of those people... as is evidenced by the fact that he
> > > >>> tried to misrepresent my position the way he has above. The stuff I
> > > >>> was talking about doesn't neatly fit into set theory. Snit argued
> > > >>> that someone was guilty while simultaneously stating that he had no
> > > >>> proof at all that the person was guilty... zilch... nada... 0%
> > > >>> proof. Anyone with a working brain know that's not really an
> > > >>> "argument", at all... it's merely an unsupported opinion and it has
> > > >>> nothing to do with math of any kind... which is why Snit brought
> > > >>> math up (in a failed attempt to obfuscate the obvious).
>
> > > >> that even mean? How do you measure it?
>
> > > > I measured it by own Snit's admission that he had none of what he
> > > > himself defined as "proof" when he simultaneously stated that his
> > > > evidence "does not offer proof ". This has been posted scores of
> > > > times by me with links. Snit made an allegation of guilt, stated that
> > > > he based on it evidence that he readily admits "does not offer proof "
> > > > and then started babbling about math (a thing he is still doing) when
> > > > I pointed out the absurdity of his position. That sockpuppets and
> > > > shills are the only "support" Snit ever gets is pretty funny;)
>
> > > > But hey, "support" away. LOL!
>
> > > You talk about percentages
>
> > 100% proof, a concept he introduced into the argument when he saw he
> > was failing. Like all sane, reasonable, honest and honorable people, I
> > realize that the phrase does not offer proof " means exactly what it
> > says... it does not offer proof. This doesn't require a percentage
> > number attached to it... but since Snit decided to address it on such
> > an absurd level I obliged him by pointing to the reality he is *still*
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lack of proof is an absolute.
No question... but Snit obviously doesn't understand this;)
> It's a 0 or non-0 state. On or off.
> No in between. Why the fuck does he do that?
I imagine it's because he's dishonest.
Steve Carroll
> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post d452$495aad2e$11...@news.teranews.com on
> 12/30/08 4:22 PM:
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C57FBFCC.E75A6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Me" <m...@mine.com> stated in post d0e8$495a697a$29...@news.teranews.com on
> >> 12/30/08 11:33 AM:
>
> >> ...
>
>
> >> Show where Steve Carroll is my sock. Or Rhino Plastee. You have now
> >> claimed both are... and you are wrong on both accounts.
>
> course not... it is absurd.
>
> >>>> What the fuck is your point? Why do you talk in riddles and never say
> >>>> anything?
>
>
> >> So what do you think it is?
>
> > It's in what you snipped out.
>
> say what he really believes... he just lashes out with hate-filled drivel.
>
>
>
> >>>> Do you agree with Tim Adams that sex must include all of the features of
> >>>> incest?
>
>
> >> -----
> >> by definition sex MUST include all of the features of incest.
> >> -----
>
>
> >>>> Do you agree sex and incest are identical?
>
>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/54792dffec49...>
>
> >> Clearly Tim did.
>
> > No he didn't.
>
> What do you base your disagreement on? Anything?
>
> >>>> Where di you think Snit misrepresneted what Tim said?
>
> >>> said, Snit.
>
> >> Empty accusations get you nowhere.
> >> ...
>
> > I haven't made any of those.
>
> puppets because they are not. I am not like Steve, I do not have a whole
> set of names.
Of course you do... and it's been posted numerous times to your
repeated denials. You also have a hefty but incomplete list of posters
that have labeled you a liar, troll or worse.
> Here are some of his:
>
> "Evil" John *
> "Evil" Snit
> Cornelius Munshower
> CSMA Moderator
> Fretwiz *
> Measles
> Petruzzellis Kids
> Sigmond
> Smit
> Steve Camoll *
> Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com> *
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
> Steve Carroll <stevecarr...@nowhere.com> *
> Steve Carrroll *
> Steve Carrolll *
> Steve C *
> Yevette Owens
This list is bogus... as is most of what you allege with no "proof".
> The ones with asterisks he has admitted to at one time or another. The
> others have been shown to be the case elsewhere.
"Shown" by whom? You? LOL!
Steve Carroll
> In article
> <bad2395f-c781-43f2-8b21-b74ad5fa0...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 7:19 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <68a9f96c-2213-4026-8fed-c6914f182...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 1:45 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <fb517d26-81b6-44e2-95d8-9dca35284...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > trivial. A simple example will suffice:
>
> > > > > > Empty set: All of the Maccies who think Steve Ballmer invented the
> > > > > > concept of a windowed OS.
>
> > > > > > Now, try to make a subset of that set. You can't, it's a logical
> > > > > > contradiction. Hell, that was high school math in my day, they
> > > > > > probably teach in 1st grade now.
>
> > > > > > Think of it this way. Two sets are equal if they contain the same
> > > > > > elements. Since the only set that can be made from an empty set is
> > > > > > another empty set all empty sets must be equal. For the formal proof
> > > > > > see:
>
> > > > > >http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/hm/Unit1Module1/Unit1Mod1.html
>
> > > > > Wow.
>
> > > > > You can't even check that your source actually agrees with what you
> > > > > claim:
>
> > > > > "Exercise #7 above illustrates a general fact about subsets:
>
> > > > > Every set is a subset of itself."
> > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > > > IOW, despite your pontificating about how elementary this all is for
> > > > > you, you got it completely wrong.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alan Baker
> > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted
> > > > > text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > subset that is strictly contained in the set and so necessarily
> > > > excludes at least one member of that set . The empty set is therefore
> > > > a proper subset of any nonempty set. Also, since the empty set has no
> > > > members there is no empty set that can contain one less member than an
> > > > empty set.
>
> > > Yes you should have. If you're going to try and throw around technical
> > > knowledge, it behooves you to be technically correct.
>
> > > :-)
>
> > > --
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > years since it took my exams in my PhD minors in econometrics and
> > mathematical economics. After spending most of my career in the
> > private sector working in a non-academic environment I'm surprised I
> > remember as much as I do! Damn, that feels good.
>
> > :)
>
> And that's my point.
>
> You came off with: "I can't believe you could get something so
> elementary wrong" and then got it wrong, yourself.
>
> I little more humility would have been better.
It's still a far better cry than what Glasser did over proper/improper
subsets... not that this is saying much;)
Rhino Plastee
>> Lack of proof is an absolute.
>
> No question... but Snit obviously doesn't understand this;)
>
>> It's a 0 or non-0 state. On or off.
>> No in between. Why the fuck does he do that?
>
> I imagine it's because he's dishonest.
You are a fucking dishonest cunt.
Snit
He is clearly consumed by hatred. And not very bright.
the concept known as 'evidence' DIRECTLY EQUATES TO PROOF
- Steve Carroll
Steve has no clue what the differences are between the concepts of evidence
and proof.
Snit brought up math (including percentages) not me... early
on he had a problem differentiating between a 100% lack of
proof and a lack of 100% proof
Yet it is 100% predictable that Steve will never say what he thinks the
difference is between a 100% lack of a binary value vs. a lack of 100% of a
binary value. He, again, made an ass out of himself. He tried to make it
sound like there was a difference when there, clearly, is not.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Rhino Plastee
>> And that's my point.
>>
>> You came off with: "I can't believe you could get something so
>> elementary wrong" and then got it wrong, yourself.
>>
>> I little more humility would have been better.
>
>
> It's still a far better cry than what Glasser did over proper/improper
> subsets... not that this is saying much;)
Quote him you dishonest fucking cunt.