Dovina
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
26 Mar 2005, 10:41 AM
You have said that you believe truth does not exist. Therefore any arguement concerning the entrance of truth into a mind is unimportant to you. I don't think I'm being dogmatic.
I understand. The problem is your definition of "valve." Even if the two valves are different, they are still valves. By your definition, a closed valve can let as much water through as an open valve of the same kind. I'm not willing to discuss valves that do not work like real valves.
Also, virtually every criticism I have ever levelled against you has been that you are too dogmatic. You are now using dogma to forward your open-mindedness argument. This is ironic too.
True. I was going for the if every advance widens the detail of a picture thus making it fuzzier then to say truth exists is analgous to say divergent lines meet. However more important I believe is the way you have been arguing the truth of 'you must be open-minded to receive truth' statement which is a touch ironic yes?
Yo dad you gittin crunked up now?
You go playa lots of luv.
Two hits so for and they don't wont to Integrate.
Whassup?
No, you haven't grasped it.
I'm not talking about a "valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open".
For all I care, that valve doesn't exist. It's irrelevant.
(Look at the words I am writing, and use your brain to understand them.)
I am talking about two SETS of valves. One is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the other is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES.
Here is what I am saying. This is what my IMPORTANT THEOREM is saying:
Take any OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES. Call this valve Ted. Then there is some CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES, called Roger, who is leaky -- and therefore lets through exactly as much water as Ted.
Ted and Roger are not the same valve. Clearly they aren't, because Ted is OPEN and Roger is CLOSED.
I am also saying the following. Take any CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Call him Gretchen. Now there is an OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, called Nancy, who is blocked, and therefore only lets through as much water as Gretchen.
Clearly, Nancy and Gretchen are not the same valve, because Gretchen is closed, and Nancy is open.
Do you understand? Do you understand how this is utterly different to talking about a SINGLE VALVE which lets through as much water open as it does closed?
Here is a COROLLARY: to the theorem: There is a one-to-one correspondence between the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Take any valve, open or closed. Then there is a valve in the other set that lets through just as much water.
THEREFORE: The set of all possible open valves, collectively, lets through exactly the same amount of water as the set of all possible closed valves.
THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness in itself is not a determinant of how much water a valve lets through.
THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water.
Do you understand now? You haven't understood before, although you've repeatedly claimed to. Do you get it now? I don't care if you agree or disagree. I just want to know if you understand what I am saying.
Integrate! Yes.
You have answered for me. Have fun at the beach, it's quite delusional.
Lets review:
You want to talk about a valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open.
I donât want to.
Impass.
Happens every day.
No reason to get upset.
You call me obstinate, wet, feminine, a failure, closed minded (you forgot dimtard)
Fine. Discuss it with someone who cares.
You haven't read all of his comments, have you?
Untrue on all counts. You fail.
ADDENDUM: The crucifix is actually a symbol for death-overcome - except in the case of poor (ie, Latin-American) Catholics, for whom it's a symbol for death-about-to-be-overcome.
Yes, you can argue, but it's going to be 10 years of Catholic School vs. you mangling an email forward mangling George Carlin.
PS- http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&am
Bizarrely, Boy George released it in 1992 (on the soundtrack for the film The Crying Game).
A few parts of this are decent, but you should have known better.
A1: Most of mine really have been about actual experiences, and yes, of mine.
A2: Wouldn't dream of it. Couldn't imagine myself as to being so crazy as ro do something as off the wall as doing something actual.
<3 Jason
Haha, that's probably true since it doesn't ring any bells. *wonders who it's by* (I was born in 1985)
You were probably like negative two years old when the song "The Crying Game" was popular.
Q1: Would you ever consider writing a poem about an actual experience of yours?
Q2: Would you ever consider having an actual experience?
One can acceptably use "dim" provided one includes a knowing smirk at its passeness, as -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. has.
You, young lady, have no knowing smirk.