Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	2-Apr-05/9:06 AM
If there were a race of Liars, would it be closed minded to reject the propositions they spouted? A 'closed minded' person might reject Negroes as a source of information, because (for whatever reason) he has concluded that Negroes are an unreliable source of information. What is the difference between that, and, say, someone who rejects carbon dating as a reliable source of information? In both cases, the protagonist's actions are stupid if, and only if, his assertion about the information source being unreliable is based on insufficient evidence. It's obvious we should avoid rejecting true propositions, and embrace rejecting false ones. Closed mindedness is neither here nor there, unless all you mean by 'closed minded' is 'a mind that makes assertions based on insufficient evidence.' It's almost a tautology that you shouldn't do that, unless you live on Planet Gay, where making an assertion based on SUFFICIENT evidence is punishable by bumming.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	2-Apr-05/8:35 AM
Whatever. I don't care about your squabbles with zodiac anyway. What I'm asking for you to do is to state what you mean by closed minded. Do you simply mean a mind that makes assertions based on insufficient evidence?
Re: a comment on How to treat young ladies by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w	2-Apr-05/8:31 AM
You always do this. Whenever an ironic poeme/comment is posted, you automatically reply explaining the blatant irony to everyone as if they weren't already aware. YES. THIS POEME ISN'T REALLY HOW YOU SHOULD TREAT YOUNG LADIES. THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. WHY ARE YOU TELLING US THAT?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	2-Apr-05/8:15 AM
Assuming no prior knowledge, "to say a person is full of crap without first considering what she has said" is an example of making an assertion based on insufficient evidence. Is that what you mean by closed minded? I don't think you have a clear idea what you mean.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	1-Apr-05/1:03 PM
If one's mind is closed to all propositions that are false, does one have a closed mind?
Re: Plato by not_a_philosopher	1-Apr-05/11:47 AM
PAPAL ALERT: The Pope's health has worsened to a point that is Beyond Thunderdome. The only things keeping him alive are Vatican denial, and a complex system of ropes, pulleys, and two-way mirrors. We just pray they can keep the white dumpling ticking for a few more hours, lest he suffer the ignobility of death on April Fool's Day :(
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	1-Apr-05/11:41 AM
Is the April Fool the fact that it wasn't really an April Fool? -10-
Re: Plato by not_a_philosopher	1-Apr-05/8:43 AM
PAPAL ALERT: The Pope's condition can only be described as "unbelievably appalling" :(
Re: a comment on The Symbol by Dovina	31-Mar-05/12:28 PM
You're both wrong. The cross Jesus died on: * Is a gruesome instrument of execution Crucifixion: * Is a gruesome method of execution Symbolic crosses: * Are symbols of a gruesome instrument of execution * Are symbols of a gruesome method of execution * Are good luck charms Dovina: * Is a buffoon zodiac: * Fills his bloomers daily
Re: How to treat young ladies by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w	29-Mar-05/12:57 PM
Baron Bumforth's "Brownford Hammer" Makes him a truly first-class rammer. Earl Cliveby, on the other hand, Simply slaps them with his gland.
Re: a comment on Plato by not_a_philosopher	28-Mar-05/1:01 PM
Such as?
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	26-Mar-05/2:49 PM
That is to say, "A one to one correspondence between the set of all possible valves letting through G gallons of water per second and the set of all possible closed valves letting through G gallons of water per second, for all possible amounts G".
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	26-Mar-05/2:46 PM
No. I did not say the valves are "of the same kind." That's something you just invented. Stop imagining that I am talking about a single valve, or a single type of valve, that is identical open and closed. That seems to be the main source of your confusion. I am simply saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets. You can't seem to fit that into your head. Do you know what a one-to-one correspondence is? Think about the set of positive numbers, and the set of negative numbers. For every positive number, there is a negative number with the same absoulte value. For every negative number, there is a positive number with the same absolute value. Therefore there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets. Do you accept that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all possible open valves and the set of all possible closed valves?
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	26-Mar-05/7:21 AM
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.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	25-Mar-05/6:12 PM
Incredible. You outrageously accuse -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. of having no response, then when he is kind enough to point out that his response had been glaring at you for several hours, you post this obstinate, wet, unbelievably feminine non-response. "I understand what you are saying and disagree for reasons I have stated." Yes you stated some reasons, but those were posted before my rejoinder, which pointed out your failure, and which you seem unwilling to address because, for whatever reason, it has been deflected from your brain glandes. Now who's being closed minded? It isn't kindly -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. who has no response. It's you. You fail. Good Christ, you fail.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	25-Mar-05/10:23 AM
In particular, the bits that directly contradicted your claims that: a) Redundant comments e.g. "end hunger" are "good practice". b) Vertically lining up brackets is "good practice". I suppose you didn't actually read the guide, or if you did, that it just fell out of your ear.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	25-Mar-05/10:18 AM
Also, I'm still waiting for your reply to my posting the link to the lisp.org style guide.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	25-Mar-05/10:15 AM
Besides, your past failures are absolutely real. You've proven over and over again that you're exceptionally ignorant about anything to do with maths, logic, science and philosophy. Of course you don't think you're ignorant. If you did, you'd probably shut up. It's just that everyone else knows you're ignorant, and that your head is full of cotton-wool. Trying to explain something to you is like trying to feed a worm tablet to a cat.
Re: a comment on Reasonably Good by Dovina	25-Mar-05/10:06 AM
My response is right there. You know, in my reply. Here it is again: "For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss. "Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss. There it is. Have you spotted it now? Do you understand the response? Do you understand how it relates to what you said? Do you understand how it relates to the discussion as a whole? Do you understand how it is a defense of my original theorem? Do you even have any idea what this thread is about? Every time I think I've finally understood how thick you are, you absolutely blow my estimate out of the water. You have an unbounded capacity for failure.
Re: The Symbol by Dovina	25-Mar-05/3:23 AM
When you wrote this poeme, did you imagine the "gang member's babe" as a black woman? Be honest.