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,

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

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

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?

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?

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".

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?

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which "parallel lines of longitude" did you have in mind exactly?
Perhaps you could show us some?

Sure. Pick up a globe. Look at them. The angles between all the lines
of longitude and a common line (the equator) are equal (90 degrees).
By theorem, two lines that cross a common line with identical angles
are parallel. You may want to look that up in a geometry book where
the truth of the meaning of that statement is clearly demonstrated.

And we thank you one and all for this confession of faith. Science,
however, understandably prefers demonstrations of truth.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD

TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.

That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.

To communicate what? Science prefers truth.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

On Apr 24, 6:35 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 25 Apr, 00:22, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously you've already taken a vow of consummate ignorance. Anyone
can say anything publicly without making it true.
That's certainly correct. However, the point of using words in the
first place is not to establish the truth of the purported meaning of
those words, but to communicate.
To communicate what? Science prefers truth.
~v~~

Contractual obligations, poems, plays, inductive infallibility? Can
the latter be communicated unambigously? Wittgenstein retreated to
language games, and rightly, Russell thought them silly.

Lester has certainly proferred himself toward the perception that he
doesn't really care one way or the other. His wee game is to cycle
through a two line script:
1  Prove what you say.
2. Nope, you haven't proven it. [Go back to 1]

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?

No, Zick, I remark that religious faith is often characterized as
believing in something for which you have no evidence. That doesn't
seem to have much bearing at all on justifying the truth of various
assumptions on the basis of other assumptions. However, your ability
to quickly extract non sequiturs from your fully packed quiver just
for the sake of fulfilling a quota of querrulous quips is quietly
noted.

On Apr 23, 1:54 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
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.

What did I say a few months ago? Was it something
like "definitions are abbreviations"?

I'll stick with that. But I'm being slightly
more verbose this go-round.

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.

No, because the points on a straight line are not
equidistant from any given point.

You don't think the points on a circle are
equidistant from the center? That's interesting.
Why don't you think so?

On Apr 23, 12:55 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
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.

The attribution of which you have not the least demonstrated the truth
of. Of course, you can go right on believing any and all attributions
for which you have no evidence. That would be along the lines of
religious faith and supernatural superstition, if I gather your drift,
Zickohantas.

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

Sure. Pick up a globe. Look at them. The angles between all the lines
of longitude and a common line (the equator) are equal (90 degrees).
By theorem, two lines that cross a common line with identical angles
are parallel. You may want to look that up in a geometry book where
the truth of the meaning of that statement is clearly demonstrated.