Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 13

EDR, the problem is, I seldom find any valid points in your response. Your questions are based on many absurd assumptions, that the only way for me to devise any kind of response is to point out those assumptions. So far you have continually claimed that "there are no rules". If that is so then we may as well talk in two different languages. I can say the following: "ask489jifads884jfa89t48t8ydhg849", and force you to answer my question. But since there are no rules, that question is completely valid. I hope you realize that there are rules that must be followed. In order for this discussion to continue, we must first clear out some misconceptions. Things like "when I think about philosophy, I..." (the nature of philosophy is not for you to dispute), etc. So if you wish to continue this healthy discussing (you can leave out the name calling), then answer my original question. However, if you decide otherwise, then we will have to drop this thread at this.

This thing is funny. keep it going

Interesting. You finally admit to your ridiculousness in a half-hearted, face-saving manner. Yes, analyze your choice of words.

If I know so little, and am so absurd, let's talk... How old are you, honestly? What *degrees* do you have? What have you done to help humanity? Have you ever started a successful business? Have you ever run a business, ever been in a senior management or executive position? Have you ever used your *arguing* skills to negotiate a large dollar deal? Have you ever performed in front of thousands of people? Where have you traveled? What kinds of culture(s) have you been exposed to, in person? What city do you live in now?

How have you contributed to society in a beneficial way?

Seriously, give me some credentials to rely on Mr. Overly Logical know-it-all.

No, honestly, I did not. I recall the discussion from 11, to 10.7 to someone saying 30. I'm sure you're older, but you do write like a 10 year old, seriously. No hard feelings.

That's because you do not comprehend them! How many times do I have to repeat that? And/or your extreme rigidness and close-mindedness are adversely affecting your ability to comprehend them.

Surprise! I agree with you. However, you are taking a broad concept (there are no rules, or no absolutes) to an extreme in the context of one minor application. Also, your continued choice of words, such as *force you* and *must* are extreme and close-minded by nature! The fact that there are many languages, constantly evolving, that words have many multiple meanings, even in the same language, new words are formed on a daily basis, and old words and languages are no longer spoken, means there are no absolutes to me. If you want to get into serious esoteric theory (which is something I bet you love to debate), then ask489jifads884jfa89t48t8ydhg849 could be a valid question in the future.

I do understand your position and have the entire time, but you still do not understand mine. That's the difference. Do not undermine mine because you cannot yet comprehend it.

When I state that there are no absolutes (ultimatey), I'm looking at the over-all grand scheme of things, and that in almost every scenario, there is room for an oddity to occur, which by default, negates the absolute! Some like to call it a "freak occurence", or "a rare occurence." and, I'm looking at the routinely changing nature of all things.

While you like to use that 1+1=2, every time all the time, when you get into serious math, there are many formulas that still cannot be solved, or that can be INTERPRETED differently by the mathematician trying to solve it, some coming up with more than one solution. Where's the set rules in those scenarios? There aren't!

And, again, many problems still cannot yet be solved. To me, that alone questions the basis of math when applied in its grander context and the basis of its rules and validity. What is truly absolute to infinity, never changing, always constant, and will always be the same? Name one thing.
The first thing we need to start doing, is YOU following your own advice!

1. RULES - stop changing your rules! Stop modifyng them, at will, simply to win an argument.

2. PUT DOWNS - applies to you also. I get defensive and name call because of your initial comments stating that a person doesn't know anything, etc. The fact that you need to write to others in the thread in a separate post to support your insecure feelings that I don't know anything is something I've already addressed.

My friend, I am afraid that you do not comprehend my position as well. But it is rather simple, as I will explain now:

Man do not truly comprehend the universe. Your theory, about how there are no rules, no constants, etc. could be entirely correct about the nature of the universe. We do not know. Even the very existence of the universe can be doubted.

However, there are things man do know. Man can also use logic and reasoning. When you speak, or write a response to me, you are following specific reasoning patterns. What man know are based on fundamental, undefinable concepts. However, these concepts are not enough. Philosophers in the past builds upon these concepts more concepts that we use. The words we use to express our ideas are one example of them.

Therefore, for man to even speak, or to think, or put our ideas into words, we follow certain rules and assumptions. Assumptions such as the nature of truth, the universality of logic, the existence of man, etc. If these are doubted, then the very act of thinking contradicts that doubt.

Yeah! A step in the right direction. We agree! By the way, I'm mostly agnostic too - surprise! I mostly agree with your statement *we do not know*. Whenever I've gotten into serious *philosphical* debates in the past (as it pertains to religion) I always profess "WE DO NOT KNOW". Alot of people think they know the answers, but I don't believe any of us really do!

As for the rest of your jargon in that last post, I definitely understood it, and found it mostly accurate! Are you happy?

It was however, a slight alteration from many of your previous postings. In addition, my approval now still does not undermine my feelings about your constant changing of rules, denouncing things like the dictionary, your many direct contradictions, and many of your other ridiculous comments and avoidances! I really do not think you're a good debater at all, because you are not fair, or open-minded. You cannot gracefully agree when you know you should (almost did above, a nice attempt). What do they call that, a sore loser?

I'm still interested to know about you. Seriously. You have not answered? You know all about me, my age, history, degree, etc. Be honest, tell the truth (no hype), tell us about you and some of your life experiences. Provide that credibility!

Or, is this avoidance because you are afraid of what *truths* may be revealed about you? HA!

EDR, I am afraid that you will not be able to find any statements that I made that contradicts a prior statement. I also kept my rules constant. Perhaps you did not comprehend many of my previous statements. If you find any contradictions in my responses please list them and I will attempt to clarify. Also the above statement does not conform with your reasoning: you insisted that since man do not completely comprehend the universe, reasoning should be abandoned. You may not see that as what you are saying, but it clearly is. It is the attitude of most skeptics.

You need help! Truly!

Oh gees! Here we go again. You just want to keep it going, you poor sad soul! As we were on the way to resolution, you pulled absolute complete innacurate nonsense out of your A** again!

No thank you. I already pointed out several of your contradictions in previous posts. If you did not want to accept them, that is your ego and your problem. If you think I'm going to spend the time to re-read every ridiculous post of yours to create a bulleted list for you, then you do not understand the value of time. By all means, you re-read my posts to you, and then re-read your own, then prepare the list that you know exists for yourself, or even for us to read.

Also, even if I were to provide that list investing all of that time, your assurance that you would *clarify* negates the entire purpose!

I've seen you try to clarify repeatedly with B.S contradictory jargon, throwing anything you can out there to be right about the issue at hand, which means my time invested has already been wasted, and to invest any more time to create a bulleted list for you, would be equally wasteful.

However, one that is fresh in my mind is that you denounced the dictionary and said that our previous philosophers' definition is the one to use instead. I raised the question of which version of several previous philosphers defining and modifying those concepts (in the context once again that ultimately, with respect to language trying to create a languge that is composed purely of non-incontrovertable words is a dream) and you ignored that.

More importantly, you wrote:

"you insisted that since man do not completely comprehend the universe, reasoning should be abandoned"

G@#Damn, you really are an idiot! I'm sorry, I cannot help but be shocked when you put words into people's mouths like that. I never said, wrote, or implied the above. I never insisted that reasoning should be abandoned, ever! I've only stated that ultimately there are no absolutes, and no rules, it's you who has INTERPRETED my comments as "reasoning should be abandoned" because that is the only way you know how to understand my comments at this time of your life, with your limited, close-minded scope.

Rule: Stop putting words into people's mouths! Gees, already!

Ok, talk about lists, make a list showing when and where I stated that all reasoning should be abandoned! This absolutely, undeniably confirms that you really DO NOT comprehend my words! You do not understand what I am saying, and your interpretation of those words is FAR-FETCHED by any reasonable standard!

You are a waste of energy!

You are a coward because you cannot come out from behind your vail, you cannot address directly posed questions, you cannot admit when you're wrong (even in certain cases). I've agreed on several instances throughout all of this, and have yet to see you once. You're a sad, sad loser!

Bye Loser!

Your name calling reveals your hypocrisy. I don't think you've agreed to anything. Nor do I see you revealing anything about yourself. In fact you insisted on one point throughout the entire conversation, making you the most incorrigible person.

You do not know the first thing about reason: when you make a statement, you have to acknowledge the consequences of that statement. When you say "there are no rules", you cannot expect everyone to take that statement at face value. When you actually find what that statement implies, you would invariable arrive at my conclusion about how you are a skeptic that questions even the notion of reasoning.

But alas! since you do not even attempt to speak the same language any argument is pointless.

COWARD! What are you hiding behind? I've stated my age, my degree, and many other personal things about myself in this and other posts this past month. Once again, I asked you a direct question and you could not answer it. You are the worst debater in the history of the world! HA!

One point? You really do not comprehend! You really, really don't. We talked about several topics, which did eventually come full circle, but we did go off on tangents, which you gladly participated in. We talked about langauge, math, philosophy (metaphysics since you defined it for me), rules, non-rules, etc. Where have you been all this time?



With you it most certainly is! We can agree on that! Yes indeed!

COWARD! By your need to get the support of others, your need to win, your inability admit when you are incorrect on any issue, your avoidance of direct valid questioning, and your avoidance of your credentials, you are a COWARD! Sad, sad, sad.

You did mention your age/location/profession, etc? I must've missed it. List them again, please. I am interested to know.

Delta: to further prove that you are a complete idiot, who does not comprehend:

Please review many of my posts, in which I repeatedly state and/or use the term(s):

1. Overly Logical

2. As the saying goes, "All things in moderation", I think somewhere in the middle is appropriate. You seem to be on the far side of the spectrum.

3. If you truly FREE YOUR MIND *a little bit*...

4. ANYTHING can be done in excess. Any particular thought process can be put into an obsessive compulsive context.

5. "You seem *extremely* rule bound, hence my jokes and hints to go back and code - shutup already. You are *too* logical."

The above are all direct quotes.

Therefore, clearly, undeniably, by all reasonable interpretation I am REPEATEDLY stating that there is nothing wrong with being logical, and not undermining the concept of logic itself, as a whole. I'm saying that one can be overly logical, or too far on one side of the spectrum, and they should not be. I've stated and implied that repeatedly, over and over, and you still missed that. Wow! Talk about comprehension. Go ahead and re-read the data it's all there.

Delta, the fact you have interpreted the foregoing repeated themes ultimately as me saying "one should abandon all reasoning", especially when I did not utilize that choice of words means you do not understand, you do not comprehend! Your gradeshool level comprehension needs *extreme* work - no pun intended!

Furthermore, Datheron stated:

It is reasonable to interpret that statement as: he is implying (and inappropriately assuming) that I am on the other side of the spectrum (strict right brain).

Moderation:

<<< ----- LOGICAL/MATHEMATICAL/LEFT BRAIN ----- >>>

<<< ----- RANDOM/SUBJECTIVE/INTUITIVE/RIGHT BRAIN ---- >>>

In addition, as I am am admitted agnostic, and not artsy fartsy, I do enjoy computers and programming, and I'm detail oriented and organized, I certainly am not 100% right brained. However, as a musician with a music degree, who does have a creative and spontaneous side, I do have right brain qualities as well.



I know I am truly somehere in the middle, while Delta is *uneven* by being on the extreme far left of the equation - overly logical - need I say it again, overly logical? Any time someone is on the extreme, they are unbalanced - period. That's been the main motiff in my message all along. Relax, loosen up, open your mind, don't be so rigid in your mathematical, left-brained mentality.

Trying to load an image into the previous post?

This tag is not pulling from my hard drive?

[IMG]c:\1.jpg[/IMG]

How do I get an image from my local drive into the post? Tks.

That was pretty funny. When Dashby wrote "...you are sick...", it was after I made a joke about his incestuous statement. It had nothing to do with this argument, but if you look back on it you will get a good chuckle.

EDR, there is something you still do not understand. You never explicitly stated that man should abandon all reason. But you made some arguments that clearly lead to that conclusion. When you make an argument, you will have to take into consideration all consequences of that argument. When you said "there are no rules", that means logic is defenestrated. It means that anything and nothing can be true. It means all and nothing exists. When you say that there are always more than one interpretation of anything, you are defying logical positivism; you throw man's only known mode of communication into question, thus making communication impossible. Your arguments lead into that conclusion, yet you do not realize it. That is typical of someone not skilled in the field.

EDIT: You can not load an image from your hd. It must be hosted by a website.

delta, i feel u man. It is kind of like talking to a big brown rock but it just wont get it.

EDR, are you being truthful about your profession? Are you a musician or do you work for a catering service?

You finally admitted to something. Wow! A step forward.

The other repeated theme of mine has been that you *interpret* things both incorrectly, and in the way you *think* they mean, and while you do so, you continually undermine your concept that words and phrases have (or should have) incontravertable definitions, because you are interpreting in your way, with your mind, and creating out of it, what you need to create to feed your ego - yet there is more than one way to interpret many of the words in question.

We do not know for sure, definitively, absolutely that either is true or not. YOU think you do. You are on the extreme left.

Quote:

When you say that there are always more than one interpretation of anything, you are defying logical positivism;

What? Are you saying there is NOT more than one way to interpret something? We've already gone through this repeatedly, with examples of language and words, I've adressed you with specific examples and questions, you've ignored and continued with your evasive jargon, because in those instances I raised valid points that you could not dispute.

That's an extreme and innacurate statement. Questioning is always good, is it not? Wasn't it you who spoke of doubt in a pro fashion at one point?

Now, there's the indirect name calling (undermining) that you dont like. You are so overly on the left (see new image finally loaded) that any skills you had have been reduced to ZERO. In fact, you are BLIND because you cannot see due to your extreme belief system. This blindness has a direct affect on your ability to comprehend.

Quote:

EDIT: You can not load an image from your hd. It must be hosted by a website.

[/quote]

Thanks! Got it loaded.

I'm a dishwasher. You got me.

Actually, two partners and I are are in the process of trying to get a multi-unit, high volume casual dining project funded - one of my businesses. The purpose of the web site is to help establish trademark and *intent to use* and *interstate commerce* via the importation of food goods from Texas and Louisiana to Cali., in addition to securing the company name. The varying, yet related themes are in the USPTO processes right now.

As you continually demonstrate your inability to fully comprehend, you will notice that I *used to be* a session guitar player before I got more on the business side of things and became an entrepeneur. I *do* have a music degree. Thus, in reality, I am still *a musician*, but not a praciticing one any longer. Pay attention, young fella! You keep putting foot in mouth.