On Apr 18, 11:58 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:20 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:46:34 -0700 (PDT), tadchem

tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:06 am, Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com
wrote:
A man would be always certain of the subject.  He would alive make the
sentence relatable and so composition was to uniformly announce
topic.  A subject topic allowed the thinking.  Another type as
composition was relation.  Subject considered would be a search for
the exact relation mentioned.

One reader has announced thought while the other uses all relation as
the possible subject.

So 2% can allow such act of thought. A consistency of composition was
the issue and my consistency would not fail a close scrutiny.

I am happy to announce a subject.  A relation, a single thought.
Either reader should be forwarned.

A.

As a student philosopher "A" means my name.  A person whose
composition skills are always relation.

All true philosophers are such in nature.  And to emulate them was my
goal.  A large relation.

"I think therefore I am."

A certain foundation to the philosopher was this famous sentence.
Relationship as person, a mind, to the world was always its subject.
A mind acts within the body given substance examinable to the depths
of the DNA strand.  Minds examine.

So consider the complexity as a personal tribute.

A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense from the Master of the Supernatural.

~v~~

Supernatural? Nah. I hardly ever talk about the supernatural.

On Apr 18, 8:13 am, feedbackdroid <feedbackdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

According to the guys quoting so-called "physicist philosophers" on
the other threads, it's all just an illusion anyways, and even you, I
guess. And here, I thought it was the buddhists who thought that.

As far as I can tell I can believe one of these three:

1. I am alone in the world but am also psychotic because I hear
voices.
2. I am not alone because I hear voices.
3. I am not alone but I am psychotic.
The voices I hear can have either source.

One can substitute the other senses and come to the same choices.
Do you believe Buddhists dealth with the senses rather than the
desires of the senses? Do you believe western philosophy devoid
of thinking about the senses?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:21:07 -0400, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense

Who's the idiot who crossposted this crap to sci.logic?

See, here's the problem, lil Herbie. I'm assured by all kinds of
mathematikers that mathematics and science generally rely essentiallly
on logic. So I'm naturally inclined to solicit the opinions of
academic logicians on such subjects as the truth of mathematical and
scientific propositions.

In fact I'm quite puzzled as to exactly why anyone would object.
Certainly if anything actually universally true were discovered
instead of merely some kind of private language code one would solicit
the widest possible distribution. So we are forced to conclude that
academic logicians have nothing to say on the subject of truth or
those more interested in its pursuit than in the mystical supernatural
you choose to call by similar names.

Nonetheless we do not object if you want to continue to post on
sci.logic as long as you remember that truth is the hallmark and
criterion of knowledge and not pretentious private languages.

~v~~

Doesn't he yap prettily?
Of course, he yaps for the same reason little dogs yap at passing ice
cream trucks, but the reason isn't important to Zick, it's just how
pretty the yap is.

Wit is wasted on the witless.

~v~~

On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:21:07 -0400, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense

Who's the idiot who crossposted this crap to sci.logic?

See, here's the problem, lil Herbie. I'm assured by all kinds of
mathematikers that mathematics and science generally rely essentiallly
on logic. So I'm naturally inclined to solicit the opinions of
academic logicians on such subjects as the truth of mathematical and
scientific propositions.

In fact I'm quite puzzled as to exactly why anyone would object.
Certainly if anything actually universally true were discovered
instead of merely some kind of private language code one would solicit
the widest possible distribution. So we are forced to conclude that
academic logicians have nothing to say on the subject of truth or
those more interested in its pursuit than in the mystical supernatural
you choose to call by similar names.

Nonetheless we do not object if you want to continue to post on
sci.logic as long as you remember that truth is the hallmark and
criterion of knowledge and not pretentious private languages.

~v~~

Doesn't he yap prettily?
Of course, he yaps for the same reason little dogs yap at passing ice
cream trucks, but the reason isn't important to Zick, it's just how
pretty the yap is.

PD wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:21:07 -0400, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense

Who's the idiot who crossposted this crap to sci.logic?

See, here's the problem, lil Herbie.

snip

Doesn't he yap prettily?

Do you mean the charming and witty "fellatious" remark, or do
you mean the pretentious dribble I snipped?

Never mind, the answer's "no".

Of course, he yaps for the same reason little dogs yap at passing ice
cream trucks, but the reason isn't important to Zick, it's just how
pretty the yap is.

He can yap all he wants. Please remove sci.logic from the newsgroups
list, as I have. We've got a full quota of self-important cranks
going on already.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe

poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
but couldn't even explain the functional dependence
of L=r x p on r with a straight face.

I'm assuming you're talking about our discussion of straight
line motion, where |r| = d/sin(theta), p = mv, and r x p =
|r|*|p|*sin(theta) = d*mv

So I guess we're still where we were. How does d*mv change
with r?

Reinterpreting my question doesn't answer my question which was and is
straightforward. Not much interested in recapitulating the obvious.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe

poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then Randy Poe not only couldn't figure out what
definitions were

Definitions are statements which associate an abbreviation
with a longer word or phrase.

Not what you had to say a few months ago.

For example: If I say "A circle is defined as the set of
points in a plane equidistant from a given point"

Not a very good definition particularly since it isn't true. You might
just as well define a circle as straight line.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
he assures us will
cover everything worth knowing about everything worth knowing about.
We've already had numerous lessons from modern mathematikers and
behaviorists on the topic. We don't need more from you. You use terms
like "Zickisms" and "think" without a clue as to exactly what you're
talking about. But talk about them nonetheless you insist on doing.

I'm sorry, you were babbling at some point about my talking about the
supernatural, but you seem to have wandered off track. Where is the
supernatural in any of this?

Your inability and unwillingness to demonstrate the truth of meanings

of the words you use such as "Zickism" and "think". I only appear to
you to have wandered off track because you've never been on track.

~v~~

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Every now and again some pissant academic comes along pretending to
accommodate everything in some private lexicon

What's private about it, Zick. The definitions of these terms are all
laid out in black in white in hundreds of articles, essays, books and
other media, for the taking by anyone interested with even a modicum
of effort. You on the other hand, don't seem willing to take any
effort other than what you can generate out of your own head -- and in
doing so, you manage to generate the private lexicon you condemn.
Please observe that "published" usually connotes "publicly available".

Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.

It's the meaning of
the terms which matters and not whether they're stated publicly. You
haven't and can't demonstrate the truth of what you claim because the
meanings involved remain completely private. That's what makes them
supernatural because they rely on your understandings and not on the
publicly demonstrated truth of those terms.

That's what makes such
comments philosophy and you an anthema to science. When you use
phrases like "Zickism" and "think" without any demonstration for the
truth of what you claim in terms of interrelations for the words you
use, your lexicon is purely private and your claims fellatious.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense from the Master of the Supernatural.

~v~~

Supernatural? Nah. I hardly ever talk about the supernatural.

Is this a joke? You never talk about anything else. Do you imagine, it
isn't there if you don't use the the terms?

Well, Zick, religious faith is often characterized as believing
something for which you have no evidence.

So you justify the truth of various assumptions on the basis of other
assumptions?

You should seriously consider a vow of ignorance in
addition to vows of poverty and chastity.

                                                              Here, you believe that I
talk about the supernatural, though you confess you have no evidence
for it,

Well as long as you're telling the story, I guess you can make up
whatever you like.

       and you say it is there nonetheless. It appears you have
religious belief that I've been talking about the supernatural.

And you should seriously consider taking Holy Orders, Dorquemada.

~v~~

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Followed by your own irretrievably
lame attempts to pretend you actually know what you're talking about
describing lines of longitude at the equator of spheres as "parallel".

Ah, finally we've arrived at something that I actually DID talk about,

And uncommonly stupid at that.

rather than an apparently religious belief in something that I did not
talk about.

Your beliefs are religious because you can't demonstrate their truth.

               And parallel lines or lines of longitude -- are these
supernatural, Zick?

Which "parallel lines of longitude" did you have in mind exactly?
Perhaps you could show us some?

                             Or is it your assumption that if you don't
understand what's being said to you, that the subject must be about
something supernatural?

No. It's my assumption that if you don't understand what you say and
can't demonstrate the truth of what you say then what you say isn't
science and is supernatural.

I demonstrate the truth of my assumption
simply by noting that lines of longitude on spheres only have single
points of intersection with the equator and neither parallelism nor
common angularity can't be shown using only one point because tangents
aren't defined for isolated points. However if your religious and
supernatural beliefs indicate otherwise you might ask the Holy Father
who is noted for positions antithetical to science for support.

~v~~

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:17:42 -0700 (PDT), PD



TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
In other words you speak
in tongues. The whole purpose of science is to explain what your
personal gods find themselves quite unable to explain. That's why
they're "supernatural" to begin with.

First there was Mati Meron who had some difficulty explaining the
derivative of cross products correctly. Then Red Herring couldn't
quite comprehend curves. Following which Dirk vdM had some difficulty
defining clocks. Then Randy Poe not only couldn't figure out what
definitions were but couldn't even explain the functional dependence
of L=r x p on r with a straight face. And finally Bagel of the HMS
Blivit had some difficulty grasping demonstrations of truth but
nonetheless expressed willingness to make a few gigabucks off of
anyone who could explain it to him.

I'm sorry, but you seem now to be attributing statements of others to
what I've been talking about. Do you also have a religious belief that
what others say, I also say?

I attribute their beliefs to a common source with yours.

A new entry for the list of modern oxymorons:
"True philosopher"

Nature abhors philosophers.

~v~~

Nature abhors Zickisms.

Ah. More fellatious nonsense from the Master of the Supernatural.

~v~~

Supernatural? Nah. I hardly ever talk about the supernatural.

Is this a joke? You never talk about anything else. Do you imagine, it
isn't there if you don't use the the terms?

Well, Zick, religious faith is often characterized as believing
something for which you have no evidence.

Here, you believe that I
talk about the supernatural, though you confess you have no evidence
for it,

and you say it is there nonetheless. It appears you have
religious belief that I've been talking about the supernatural.

but couldn't even explain the functional dependence
of L=r x p on r with a straight face.

I'm assuming you're talking about our discussion of straight
line motion, where |r| = d/sin(theta), p = mv, and r x p =
|r|*|p|*sin(theta) = d*mv

So I guess we're still where we were. How does d*mv change
with r?

Then Randy Poe not only couldn't figure out what
definitions were

Definitions are statements which associate an abbreviation
with a longer word or phrase.

For example: If I say "A circle is defined as the set of
points in a plane equidistant from a given point"

then
everywhere I would use the phrase "set of points in a plane
equidistant from a given point" I can substitute the letters
"circle" without changing the meaning. Equivalently, everywhere
I see the word "circle" I can substitute "set of points in a plane
equidistant from a given point".