honestly...(next)?!

[eye2i2hear]

Steven Pinker Wrote:
Another fashion cycle affects terms of superlatives. ... Long ago our ancestors diluted the original sense of terrific (causing of terror), fantastic (worthy of fantasy), tremendous (causing one to tremble), wonderful (inspiring wonder), and fabulous (celebrated in fable). Speakers in recent decades have similarly taken the punch out of awesome, outstanding, excellent, and in Britain, brilliant.

--Steven Pinker, The Stuff Of Thought, What's In A Name?

Honest! (next??)



bonus Tinkerism: "...fuck is from a Scandanavian word for "beat" or "thrust" [and not "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", Van Halen, nor "Fornication Under Consent of the King"] (and, by the way, testify does not come from a Roman practice in which men vouched for a statement by swearing on their testicles, and shit is not an acronym for "Ship High in Transit", an advisory to keep dried manure away from the bottom of a cargo hold where it might get wet, release methane, and blow the ship to bits)."

[zonsb]

(10-16-2011 03:10 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

Steven Pinker Wrote:
Another fashion cycle affects terms of superlatives. ... Long ago our ancestors diluted the original sense of terrific (causing of terror), fantastic (worthy of fantasy), tremendous (causing one to tremble), wonderful (inspiring wonder), and fabulous (celebrated in fable). Speakers in recent decades have similarly taken the punch out of awesome, outstanding, excellent, and in Britain, brilliant.

--Steven Pinker, The Stuff Of Thought, What's In A Name?

Quote:Honest! (next??)

NonEntity is working on it -- how to contradict non-contradictory logic.

[NonEntity]

Fuckin' AWESOME!

- NonE

[zonsb]

Is a common criminal that is sincere and frank in robbing a person honest? Is a common criminal that is without pretensions in robbing a person honest? To be consistent with non-contradictory logic: No.

Juxtaposition a common thief to a grifter/government-thief, is the common thief that robs with sincerity and frankness and without pretensions honest? No.

From the Dictionary.com website:
hon·est
4. sincere; frank: an honest face.

From the die.net website:
honest
5: without pretensions; "worked at an honest trade"; "good honest food"

Yep, it's dead.

[eye2i2hear]

[ihears The Temptations singing... "And the band plays on..."]

Quote:honest
Definition: truthful, candid
Antonyms: deceptive, devious, dishonest, false, fraudulent, lying, misleading, treacherous, untrustworthy, untruthful

--http://thesaurus.com/ [not offered/intended as Authoritarian, but rather merely as an authored historical record/opinion for consideration*]

"honest" (a single word) can* mean (communicate) the opposite of "deceptive" (a single word)

How do I know? Well, that's precisely how eye read it (heard it?).

works logically consistent enough for me --viz common/informal communication aka a forum post/context of contrast=restriction)~

butt all I'm interested herein is communication (not logical perfection)

[oh, butt if crumudgeon** NonE had taken the time to type it all out instead of short cuttin' (some) & trusting us... i.e. the armed robber thug is at least honest about his act of robbing (dishonorable as the fellow himself is per the act), contrasted with the political thugs using words of art to disguise their acts of robbery and mask his dishonesty... (or something like that)]


* it can of course, mean whatever NonE wants/sez it means --along with anyone else who agrees [that is of course, precisely how different meanings for the same words get (eventually) to be entries in dictionaries to start with; friggin' anarchists!]
** crumudgeon: a crummy irascible cantankerous old fart (thus, not a typo)

---

(10-16-2011 07:20 PM)zonsb Wrote:  From the Dictionary.com website:
hon·est
4. sincere; frank: an honest face.

From the die.net website:
honest
5: without pretensions; "worked at an honest trade"; "good honest food"

Well, let me author a bit here, and you can " " me2:

From the eye-site/eye.net dictionary:
4. sincere; frank: "an honest acknowledgment regarding a specific act".
5: without pretensions; "yes, this is an honest to dog god robbery"



And just to qualify: are you saying that in order for a usage of a word "To be consistent with non-contradictory logic", it must always meet any and every common dictionary entry? e.g. if the word 'honest' is used, regardless of context, it must meet all 5 entries/meanings? And if it is accurate of this word, it applies to all words?

[zonsb]

(10-16-2011 08:40 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  butt all I'm interested herein is communication (not logical perfection)

Obviously anyone can demonstrate inconsistency with non-contradictory logic and even go so far as to wear it as a "badge of honor". So be it then. I assume along a similar vein a protection service that is devoid of using initiatory force, threat of force and fraud to be a statist company if it has "government" in its name. Stated differently, it abides the non-aggression principle thus is a "government" in name only. I'm just checking to see how deep the inconsistency with non-contradictory logic has burrowed and how much millage can be squeezed out of the badge of honor.

Quote:And just to qualify: are you saying that in order for a usage of a word "To be consistent with non-contradictory logic", it must always meet any and every common dictionary entry? e.g. if the word 'honest' is used, regardless of context, it must meet all 5 entries/meanings? And if it is accurate of this word, it applies to all words?

No. No external authority is required to validate or invalidate consistency with non-contradictory logic.

[NonEntity]

troll (noun):

Wiktionary
1) A supernatural being of varying size, now especially a grotesque humanoid creature living in caves or hills or under bridges. [from early 17th c.]
2) An ugly person of either sex
3) An instance of trolling, especially, in fishing, the trailing of a baited line. [from circa 1600]
4) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc, in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose. [from late 20th c.]
5) A deliberately inflammatory post to a newsgroup, etc. [from late 20th c.]

Quote:“Being voted down by a troll is actually a vote up for those that operate in the real world.”

Quote:“What makes a troll a troll is the constant demands for attention, and the willingness to argue in bad faith to get it.”

cretin (noun):

Wiktionary
cretin (plural cretins)
1) (pathology) A person who fails to develop mentally and physically due to a congenital hypothyroidism.
2) (pejorative) An idiot.


- NonE (feeding the grotesque humanoid creature living under the bridge)

[zonsb]

Don't you wish it was merely about trolling. I have no need for dictionary or Wikipedia quotes when you so easily hang yourself with your own words

Your projection is obvious. For it is you that several times made derogatory comments about me. Not by addressing me directly rather, by riding on the coattails of other members that quote my words in their posts. Trolling and "arguing" in bad faith. And it's you that so enjoys the cut-throat action on the TV show Survivor. You watch almost no TV but never miss watching Survivor.

(03-05-2011 08:35 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  It has always been the interaction between the participants which fascinates me. It's a cut throat game and there are no rules. You want to win and winning depends upon getting rid of all of your competition. Aside from murder or something similar, it's up to you what tactic to use. But the CATCH is this: the winner is CHOSEN by all of the people who have been kicked off "the island" in some fashion or another before him or her. Thus it is incumbent on the player to simultaneously get rid of all of his or her competition while also making sure that they retain positive feelings for that player so that they will vote for him at the final reckoning.

I now see that perhaps this is the closest thing to actual anarchy that I can see in real time (well, sorta real time.) There is no legislature, no cops, no taxes, no permits, NO LAWYERS... It's just you and the other players out there. You have to get along and you have to survive, just like in real life, but you have to figure out your own sense of ethics and fair play or skulduggery and the sense of whether or not it is worth it (and it generally comes out that it is NOT.) And you earn the results of your actions.

[Emphasis mine.]

NonEntity quotes the following:

Quote:“Being voted down by a troll is actually a vote up for those that operate in the real world.”

[Emphasis mine.]

It's so much about external authority of the community that's looked up to to weigh the worth of the participants. Yep, that sure enough is the sad state of affairs today in real life (not a game show).

I think board member "fsk", had the most poignant response:

fsk Wrote:The rules for a "reality show" tend to bring out the worst in people. You can't win without backstabbing people. In a reality show, if you cheat someone, you never have to deal with them again. In real life, it should be about building long-term relationships.

Continued here.

[zonsb]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Stated differently, the pot calling the kettle black.
Projection.

(10-16-2011 10:32 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  troll (noun):

Wiktionary
1) A supernatural being of varying size, now especially a grotesque humanoid creature living in caves or hills or under bridges. [from early 17th c.]
2) An ugly person of either sex
3) An instance of trolling, especially, in fishing, the trailing of a baited line. [from circa 1600]
4) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc, in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose. [from late 20th c.]
5) A deliberately inflammatory post to a newsgroup, etc. [from late 20th c.]
- NonE (feeding the grotesque humanoid creature living under the bridge)

[emphasis mine.]He uses an appeal to external authority rather than empirical evidence. Because he has none. From the same above post is more appeal to external authority and excuse to not back up his claims with empirical evidence.

Quote:“Being voted down by a troll is actually a vote up for those that operate in the real world.”

Quote:“What makes a troll a troll is the constant demands for attention, and the willingness to argue in bad faith to get it.”

This final quote from the above post is also an external authority -- especially poignant as people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Rather, they should look closely to see the box they've created by their own design. Especially regards, "willingness to argue in bad faith".

Quote:cretin (noun):
Wiktionary
cretin (plural cretins)
1) (pathology) A person who fails to develop mentally and physically due to a congenital hypothyroidism.
2) (pejorative) An idiot.

Note the smiley face is used to infer that it's just a joke, not trolling. The troll got OWNED in response.
10-14-2011, 07:17 PM

(10-14-2011 06:17 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I think you and zonsb should debate this topic.

- NonE

This next trolling is particularly interesting as it is a cross-post. A troll and a stalker.
10-14-2011, 04:50 PM

(10-14-2011 09:50 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-14-2011 08:29 AM)zonsb Wrote:  "A common criminal is honest." - NonEntity
Honest:
1. honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair
2. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings
3. gained or obtained fairly

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Wrote:Your reputation is harmed the most by what you say to defend it.

- NonE

It's understandable why NonEntity/troll won't defend his "lies" and/or delusions (Ie. mysticism mind-spun fabrications) in regards to THE POINT.Explained here.

This troll is revealing of a specific tactic. Saying it's a stupid idea hits the mark/target -- followed by an escape/diffusion: maybe it's just me, something I'm not getting because I'm not on drugs. The comment is the poster's opinion, obviously -- not needed to be stated as it's wholly obvious. The troll used it to take the heat* off himself. (*to hide the flame.)
10-14-2011, 01:05 AM]RE: Sir! Sir! Don't Start With Me. Just Don't Start With Me...

(10-13-2011 06:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-13-2011 05:54 PM)Jonathanr Wrote:  ..is now my ringtone. I thought having a ringtones repository for the choicest quips would be a good idea.

Thoughts?

I think that is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. But then, I've not had a recent booster shot of psilocyben, so it's just probably my own shit and nothing to do with your idea.

- NonE

A string of three-post exchanges with no argument put forth by the troll. He wants to manipulate the other person (me) to argue against his non argument. He needs me to create a mysticism-spun illusion of an argument and attribute it to him as though it were his argument. "willingness to argue in bad faith"
10-06-2011, 09:15 PM

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  See above comment.

Still no argument put forth. Just ridicule and a second attempt to get me to create a mysticism-spun illusion of an argument. His ridicule is his escape/evasion from making an argument.
10-06-2011, 11:31 PM

NonEntity Wrote:

zonsb Wrote:What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>
- NonE

10-07-2011, 12:01 AM

NonEntity Wrote:

zonsb Wrote:Yes seriously!!! Yes ambiguity!!! Who is Jeffry Dahmer? Apparently you're incapable of making a coherent comment or argument. I asked two inquisitive question and you demonstrate no empathy for my plight -- just ridicule. Is that what empathy is for you -- a club?

Sorry. Here, let me help CLICK HERE
- NonE

He didn't want to say, He was a serial killer/cannibal the news reported on for several weeks. Here's my argument... Interesting that his alleged helpful link was to Google (To imply I could have googled it. Rather than him put a link to Wikipedia page for Jeffrey Dahmer -- obviously that would be most helpful.) He didn't like it when I called him on that and why should I believe he wanted to be helpful that late in the back-and-forth when he was anything but helpful thus far.

* * *

This troll is disruptive, deceitful and/or mind-spun mysticism-illusion. The "method to my madness" explained in comment below. "willingness to argue in bad faith"
10-13-2011, 04:30 PM

(10-13-2011 09:30 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-13-2011 01:53 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 01:56 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Yes I did set the goal post at the top of the thread. And it remains exactly where I placed it then. The only thing you've proved is your ability to rationalize to absurd and ludicrous ends.

You've made several claims that the rationalization I've used is absurd, but you've yet to point out where the flaw in logic exists.

That's his style... exactly the same response - repeatedly - that zonsb made when I stated that a thief was honest (I think that was in relation to a politician, but don't remember for sure). All he did was make fun of me rather than refute the logic that demanding something forthrightly is honest whereas using manipulation and deceit is not. This response and the slurs he has engaged in since then are proof to me that he himself is dishonest. I think the more proper term is Argumentum ad hominem. He has proven himself to be unworthy of serious conversation.

Method to my madness. I started this thread knowing RealSkinny would almost certainly bite. From there it was a matter of reeling him in with faux debate. Knowing he would bear fruit with one rationalization on-top of another. I had what I needed. There was no point further the faux debate. Having reeled him in, I returned to THE POINT/goal post: if anyone had valid solution to the prosecutors and judges inability to refute the facts, that person could make easy money and gain power and glory.

NonEntity's post was an unanticipated, albeit welcome "surprise". So I ran with it. I called him out with empirical evidence. He, like ReallySkinny, wouldn't touch THE POINT with a ten-foot poll. Instead, he set his sights on "A Point". Seems other people got sucked into that "A Point" too. THE POINT is, was it deceit/lying or mysticism (Ie., believing in the unreal as though it were real. Acting on the unreal as though it were real.) Or, were his claims valid, supported by fact and empirical evidence. I had the facts and empirical evidence on my side/hand.

* * *

This troll asserts that I'm a statist despite much empirical evidence to the contrary. It's an oxymoron to claim a voluntarist is a statist. NonEntity/troll was challenged to back up his claim that I'm a statist and he was stone-cold silent. It's either a blatant lie, or he actually believes his mind-spun illusion that I'm a statist -- him in denial of the empirical evidence. "willingness to argue in bad faith"
03-02-2011, 11:40 PM

(03-02-2011 04:40 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Has this somehow turned into the fundamentalist statist belief forum while I was out watering the dog, or whut? Sheeeesh!

At least it's keepin' you guys off the street I guess. ...

You guys really need to come up for a bit of fresh air and a breath of reality on occasion.

- NonE

He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.

[eye2i2hear]

Cripes, let's just make this thread longer still (since it's likely none but us 3 Stooges are still even considering trying to read it to start with)!? First, a snippet from the long (context) version to follow:

Quote:[S]ome words cannot be defined by means of others (because those other words also have to be defined and this leads to infinite regression). If we adopt the broad view that a definition is the explanation of meaning by other words, how can we define "blue"? Only by pointing out examples of blue. Thus, names of elementary ideas (colors, for instance) cannot be defined by words. They require an "ostensive definition" (definition by pointing out examples). This is because elementary concepts apply to our experiences (emotions, sensations, or impressions) and to sensa (sense data). These are usually words in a private language, our private language. How does one communicate (let alone define) the emotions one experiences during an epiphany?

On the contrary: dictionary definitions suffer from gross inaccuracies precisely because they are confined to established meanings. They usually include in the definition things that they should have excluded, exclude things that they should have included or get it altogether wrong. Stipulative or ostensive definitions cannot be wrong (by definition). They may conflict with the lexical (dictionary) definition and diverge from established meanings. This may prove to be both confusing and costly (for instance, in legal matters). But this has nothing to do with their accuracy or truthfulness. Additionally, both types of definition may be insufficiently explanatory. They may be circular, or obscure, leaving more than one possibility open (ambiguous or equivocal).

Many of these problems are solved when we introduce context to the definition.

[[b]bold[/b] text, mine]

The context:

forum poster KittyAW linked to this, where a Dr Sam Vatkin Wrote:... A good definition includes a context, which serves to alleviate ambiguity.

... In this sense it is much like a scientific theory. It talks about the match or the correlation between language and reality. Reality is parsimonious and to reflect it, definitions must be as parsimonious as it is.

Let us summarize the characteristics of a good definition and then apply them and try to define a few very mundane terms.

First, a definition must reveal the meaning of the term or concept defined. By "meaning" I mean the independent and invariant meaning – not the culturally dependent, narrative derived, type. The invariant meaning has to do with a function, or a use. A term or a concept can have several uses or functions, even conflicting ones. But all of the uses and functions must be universally recognized. Think about Marijuana or tobacco. They have medical uses and recreational uses. These uses are expressly contradictory. But both are universally acknowledged, so both define the meaning of marijuana or tobacco and form a part of their definitions.

Let us try to construct the first, indisputable, functional, part of the definitions of a few terms.

"Chair" – Intended for sitting.

"Game" – Deals with the accomplishment of goals.

"Window" – Allows to look through it, or for the penetration of light or air (when open or not covered).

"Table" – Intended for laying things on its surface.

It is only when we know the function or use of the definiendum that we can begin to look for it. The function/use FILTERS the world and narrows the set of candidates to the definiendum. A definition is a series of superimposed language filters. Only the definendum can penetrate this lineup of filters. It is like a high-specificity membrane: only one term can slip in.

The next parameter to look for is the characteristics of the definiendum. In the case of physical objects, we will be looking for physical characteristics, of course. Otherwise, we will be looking for more ephemeral traits.

"Chair" – Solid structure Intended for sitting.

"Game" – Mental or physical activity of one or more people (the players), which deals with the accomplishment of goals.

"Window" – Planar discontinuity in a solid surface, which allows to look through it, or for the penetration of light or air (when open or not covered).

"Table" – Structure with at least one leg and one flat surface, intended for laying things on its surface.

A contrast begins to emerge between a rigorous "dictionary-language-lexical definition" and a "stipulative definition" (explaining how the term is to be used). The first might not be immediately recognizable, the second may be inaccurate, non-universal or otherwise lacking.

Every definition contrasts the general with the particular. The first part of the definiens is almost always the genus (the wider class to which the term belongs). It is only as we refine the definition that we introduce the differentia (the distinguishing features). A good definition allows for the substitution of the defined by its definition (a bit awkward if we are trying to define God, for instance, or love). This would be impossible without a union of the general and the particular. A case could be made that the genus is more "lexical" while the differentia are more stipulative. But whatever the case, a definition must include a genus and a differentia because, as we said, it is bound to reflect reality and reality is hierarchical and inclusive ("The Matriushka Doll Principle").

"Chair" – Solid structure Intended for sitting (genus). Makes use of at least one bodily axis of the sitter (differentia). Without the differentia – with the genus alone – the definition can well fit a bed or a divan.

"Game" – Mental or physical activity of one or more people (the players), which deals with the accomplishment of goals (genus), in which both the activities and the goals accomplished are reversible (differentia). Without the differentia – with the genus alone – the definition can well fit most other human activities.

"Window" – Planar discontinuity in a solid surface (genus), which allows to look through it, or for the penetration of light or air (when open or not covered) (differentia). Without the differentia – with the genus alone – the definition can well fit a door.

"Table" – Structure with at least one leg and one flat surface (genus), intended for laying things on its surface(s) (differentia). Without the differentia – with the genus alone – the definition can well fit the statue of a one-legged soldier holding a tray.

It was Locke who realized that there are words whose meaning can be precisely explained but which cannot be DEFINED in this sense. This is either because the explanatory equivalent may require more than genus and differentia – or because some words cannot be defined by means of others (because those other words also have to be defined and this leads to infinite regression). If we adopt the broad view that a definition is the explanation of meaning by other words, how can we define "blue"? Only by pointing out examples of blue. Thus, names of elementary ideas (colors, for instance) cannot be defined by words. They require an "ostensive definition" (definition by pointing out examples). This is because elementary concepts apply to our experiences (emotions, sensations, or impressions) and to sensa (sense data). These are usually words in a private language, our private language. How does one communicate (let alone define) the emotions one experiences during an epiphany? On the contrary: dictionary definitions suffer from gross inaccuracies precisely because they are confined to established meanings. They usually include in the definition things that they should have excluded, exclude things that they should have included or get it altogether wrong. Stipulative or ostensive definitions cannot be wrong (by definition). They may conflict with the lexical (dictionary) definition and diverge from established meanings. This may prove to be both confusing and costly (for instance, in legal matters). But this has nothing to do with their accuracy or truthfulness. Additionally, both types of definition may be insufficiently explanatory. They may be circular, or obscure, leaving more than one possibility open (ambiguous or equivocal).

Many of these problems are solved when we introduce context to the definition. Context has four conceptual pillars: time, place, cultural context and mental context (or mental characteristics). A definition, which is able to incorporate all four elements is monovalent, unequivocal, unambiguous, precise, universal, appropriately exclusive and inclusive, aesthetic and parsimonious.

"Chair" – Artificial (context) solid structure Intended for sitting (genus). Makes use of at least one bodily axis of the sitter (differentia). Without the context, the definition can well fit an appropriately shaped rock.

"Game" – Mental or physical activity of one or more people (the players), subject to agreed rules of confrontation, collaboration and scoring (context), which deals with the accomplishment of goals (genus), in which both the activities and the goals accomplished are reversible (differentia). Without the context, the definition can well fit most other non-playing human activities.

"Window" – Planar discontinuity in a solid artificial (context) surface (genus), which allows to look through it, or for the penetration of light or air (when not covered or open) (differentia). Without the context, the definition can well fit a hole in a rock.

It is easy to notice that the distinction between the differentia and the context is rather blurred. Many of the diffrerentia are the result of cultural and historical context. A lot of the context emerges from the critical mass of differentia.

We have confined our discussion hitherto to the structural elements of a definition. But a definition is a dynamic process. It involves the sentence doing the defining, the process of defining and the resulting defining expression (definiens). This interaction between different definitions of definition gives rise to numerous forms of equivalence, all called "definitions". Real definitions, nominal definitions, prescriptive, contextual, recursive, inductive, persuasive, impredicative, extensional and intensional definitions, are stars in a galaxy of alternative modes of explanation.

But it all boils down to the same truth: it is the type of definition chosen and the rigorousness with which we understand the meaning of "definition" that determine which words can and cannot be defined. In my view, there is still a mistaken belief that there are terms which can be defined without going outside a specified realm(=set of terms). People are trying to define life or love by resorting to chemical reactions. This reductionism inevitably and invariably leads to the Locke paradoxes. It is true that a definition must include all the necessary conditions to the definiendum. Chemical reactions are a necessary condition to life. But they are not sufficient conditions. A definition must include all the sufficient conditions as well.

Now we can try to define "definition" itself:

"Definition" – A statement which captures the meaning, the use, the function and the essence of a term or a concept.

--The Definition of Definitions

[NonEntity]

(10-19-2011 11:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  "Table" – Intended for laying things on its surface.


"Table" – Structure with at least one leg and one flat surface, intended for laying things on its surface.


"Table" – Structure with at least one leg and one flat surface (genus), intended for laying things on its surface(s) (differentia). Without the differentia – with the genus alone – the definition can well fit the statue of a one-legged soldier holding a tray.

Eye2 is a lying, deceitful scumbag of a hypocritical fooler of gullible people. And I have the PROOF!!!

Glass houses! Rocks! Slurs (not to be confused with his speech patterns after an evening on the town) and all sorts of other dubious slanders and really stupider things that I'm not creative enuf to think of at the moment.

PROOF, I tell you! Proof. And I've just PROVED IT. And if you don't believe it I'll come back with PAGES AND PAGES and REAMS (not to be confused with Rheems which cool things down rather than heat them up) of meaningless CRAP and allegations and such...

- NonE

[zonsb]

(10-19-2011 11:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Cripes, let's just make this thread longer still (since it's likely none but us 3 Stooges are still even considering trying to read it to start with)!? First, a snippet from the long (context) version to follow:

Thanks eye2. That I read your post with a dictionary open in one window and Google in another, does that mean I'm some kind of grammarian geek now?

Quick side note: I read most of Sam's online writings regards narcissism and personality disorders four years ago.

Anyhow, words, which are metaphors, are primarily for thinking/communicating with oneself. I learned to write as I speak by writing copy. The objective is for it to have a conversational flow like chatting over coffee with friend. It explains why MS Word thinks I'm a grammatical miscreant.

As grammatically interesting as the word "honest" is, and understanding "stipulative or ostensive definitions cannot be wrong (by definition)", I agree with the means NonEntity expressed it for communication purposes. Which as you pointed out is your primary need. For that purpose it need not be "perfect"/consistent with formal non-contradictory logic. I'm cool with that.

However instructive that has been, it remains an "A point" overshadowed by THE POINT.

P.S. Can I be Mo? I wanna be Mo.

As for THE POINT from which a person, including a nonentity, can run but cannot hide...

[eye2i2hear]

Honestly. You don't know Jack.

(10-19-2011 02:21 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Eye2 is a lying, deceitful scumbag of a hypocritical fooler of gullible people. And I have the [url=http://en.wikipex's.org/wiki/Eye2i's_Ex_audio.mp3]PROOF!!!

There for a minute I expected to find an mp3 by my Ex.

Quote:PROOF, I tell you! Proof. And I've just PROVED IT.

40%? 80% 160 proof?!
Honestly. You don't know Jack Daniels.

Butteye prefer mine with some School House Rock...

[for the background music]

centerpiece optional on this table, Muther~

[zonsb]

(10-19-2011 02:21 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Eye2 is a lying, deceitful scumbag of a hypocritical fooler of gullible people. And I have the PROOF!!!

Glass houses! Rocks! Slurs... and all sorts of other dubious slanders and really stupider things that I'm not creative enuf to think of at the moment.

PROOF, I tell you! Proof. And I've just PROVED IT. And if you don't believe it I'll come back with PAGES AND PAGES and REAMS... of meaningless CRAP and allegations and such...

Wow! Attaboy NonE. I nominate your post for disingenuous post of the year award.

I found it revealing, your inference to "fooler of gullible people," rather degrading of them. I respect the few (if there were any) for they may have mistaken your sensationalism to be valid argument. Frankly, I give people on this board more credit -- well deserved credit. I assume most see your sensationalism as avoidance, not argument. And certainly not empirical evidence. You wouldn't go near THE POINT with a ten-foot poll.

I knew you wouldn't. The thing is; with your derogatory comments about me in your reply to RealSkinny, you challenged me. I didn't challenge you. I called your bluff. I laid my cards/hand face-up on the table. Ditto for your "Troll post" on this thread.

Come off it.
(Go to 1:26 in the below video.)

[zonsb]

Marc posted a new article on the homepage: Evidentiary-based Line of Questioning in Legal Land

Analogous to his thread and the other one mentioned in my above post with regards to staying on THE POINT.

Quote:Most of your focus will be directed on keeping their answers responsive to the question asked.