Um, you want that ratio to be rather closer to 1, dude. High means you’re a sanctimonious prick who, even when he’s right, is an asshole. Low means you’re nice and all but stupid as shit. 1 means you’re … well, you’ve been arguing against a bunch of 1s. Hardly need point them out to you.
[blinks]
So? As long as the “rationality” half of the ratio is high, I don’t particularly care about the other.
(Technically, a high ratio doesn’t imply that I’m particularly rational, and a low ratio doesn’t mean that I’m pleasant but dumb. The nature of ratios means that we learn nothing about its individual components, only their relationship to each other. All of those '1’s out there might be dumb, rude people or smart, polite people. Concluding that my rationality far outweighs my politeness doesn’t mean that I’m very rational – it could mean that I’m dumb and really, really rude.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.)
Now where have I heard that before?
Unfortunately, you have yet to hit that path on the conditional.
[sigh]
I don’t think you’re using sufficiently large fonts, Spiritus. You’re not getting your message through clearly enough. D’ya think skywriting would help? An ad campaign, perhaps?
I’m sure if you’re writing becomes big enough, we’ll forget about your misrepresentations and inaccuracies.
“misrepresentations and inaccuracies” ?
You are one world-class sniveling, uppity little shit. You have some gall projecting your mistakes and character flaws on others. Especially someone like Spiritus, who has shown more patience to a harebrained, hyperactive, sneering prick such as yourself than I ever would.
You can kindly go fuck yourself. Lord knows that’s the only person who ever will, and somehow I think you wouldn’t have it any other way.
Dogs respond to the tone, not the content, of the things said to them.
cainxinth seems to have a startling similarity to canines.
TVAA, you seem to think that repetition of false charges is the same as demonstration that a charge holds. It is not.
The only thing you demonstrate is that your ethical development has never progressed beyond the measure of a third grade playground. I would say that it is a shame that the schools you attended cared more about developing intellect than character, but it is obvious that in your case they failed to develop either.
You think a system that contains both A and ~A is consistent, and you claim I’ve repeated false charges?
:rolleyes:
out of interest, is this argument now occupying 3 different threads at the same time?
No. I recognize that a systm that contains both A and ~A can be mathematically consistent. That is a statement of fact, not a charge.
You have made plenty of false statements of fact, too, of course, but the distinction is not trivial.
mallocks
Different arguments with a few of the same principles.
[quiote][li]A GD thread in which actual debate has pretty much ended.[/li][li]A PIT thread tha tTVAA opened to level false charges and display his general ignorance (well, that has been teh effect if not the original intent.)[/li][li]This PIT thread that cainxinth opened to confront TVAA about his behavior in that htread.[/list][/li]
I hadn’t intended to post in this thread, but when I saw it had hit 2 pages I became curious enough to look. Then, I admit, the ironic magnitude of TVAA claiming to be driven by a concern for rationality overwhelmed my reticence. Still, I have said everything of import in either the GD thread or the first PIT thread. I thnk I can leave this one to go as it will.
“sumit”
“preview”
What’s the difference, really? :smack:
I’ve just posted the general-language definition of “consistent” to the other thread.
Spiritus, you’ve only confirmed my suspicions that you’re utterly unable to speak English.