Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 16

OK, then how do we ever agree on the official unambiguous, incontrovertable syntax you believe exists in the forum of debates? I guess YOU get to make up the rules and definitions, right? Or, you get to choose WHICH philosophers' definition is the one that suits you and therefore should be appropriate for the argument?

Please tell me you see the ridiculousness in your continued attempts to cover your tracks on these issues. If not, you are hopeless!

Darn you got me all figured out, but I actually though I was arguing with other 13 year olds in this thread HA!

And, you said you only read to page 3, so how do you know what's been posted thereafter?

Yes, in real life, I've been a complete failure, and everyone in my class hates me at Junior High. Everyone is against me. I've never been able to accomplish anything. I hate myself.

I can only find solice on these forums, hiding behind the facade about who I really am (like Delta).

I'm a dishwasher for a catering company, not bad for a 13 year old. Better than a paper route. I think I need to goto Bible Study now to gain some confidence and support. Praise God, oh wait ... I'm agnostic, and I don't even know what that means?

As I said, I was planning on not coming back to continue arguing with you. But since you clearly admitted your mistakes, and by association appologized to me it is over with.
Thanks for understanding your wrong doings and admitting them and coming clean.

I'm not a bad 13 year old at heart! I like to come clean. By association? Sounds like you come from the same school of debate as Delta - twistthewords.edu.

I don't think I know Delta but there is always a chance that he went to one of the schools that I attended.

You put a question mark after "by association", is there something you don't understand, lad?

Again, thanks for the appology.

Once again, that is YOUR opinion, based on your assumptions, your limited knowledge, and what you perceive to be true, which by the way is in contradiction with the dictionary - but you've already denounced the validity of the dictionary repeatedly.

If Philosphy and logic were clearly one in the same, the dictionary would indicate that, WITHOUT VARIANCES.

And, Dath would not have written, "I have provided example after example that philosophy is NOT logic."

OK, so we agree that Philosphy is NOT logic, yet is related, we all agreed on that. It is related. I stated that too! Remotely related in my opinion, while you think very strongly related. We have another disagreement, neither of which you two can definitively prove in your favor with absolutes! You can do so only with opinion. Whether or not three of you have the same opinion in this particular forum, does not add any weight to your belief.

In any case, seems like we don't know how to specifically define Philosophy as Delta disregards the dictionary definitions.

Therefore, considering there is obvious room for debate on this issue, that (as previously stated) my assumptions are within the reasonable confines of third-party written and public materials (the dictionary, right/left brain materials) and reasonable emperical observation and human experience, including conversations on the topic with many others, who are very academically astute, and who have associated, as I have, Philosophy more on the right side of the spectrum - THEN the way I choose to *think* of or *define* Philosophy, as less-logical than the context you like to use it in, is also correct, and has reasonable supporting data. Sorry.

By admitting my mistakes, I apologized to you? By association? What does association mean? Yes, as a lad, it's beyond my scope of vocabulary. I would look it up in the dictionary, but use of the dictionary is one of the *rules* or *models* not accepted in this forum. I don't know what to do?

Well there is where it lies... You don't know what to do. But this time, instead of going off like before, you had the intelligence to ask what to do. Very good, very good job. You are getting closer every post.

Now what you are to do is go to bed (brush your teeth first) and get a good night sleep.

When you wake up you should come back here and appologize to everyone here that you offended, flamed, etc.

Then get out of the chair and go outside, come back here only once a week and make sure to act civil.

I am extremely proud of you for doing this.

Can I stay up late, please? I hate brushing my teeth! Only once a week? What will I do? So where's my apology for the assumptions you made, and bad choice of language you used grouping us all into your plural statements? You never did say, who were the trolls?

Shoot Newb, my mom is yelling at me to goto bed. I have to turn the computer off now, and put my P.J.'s on. At least I don't have school tomorrow. I can spend another day on the forum - all day. Yeah. Good night!

Hmmmmmm, maybe I am just too tired, but it seems as if you are being sarcastic? Naw, I don't believe that, I believe that you changed your ways to become a grown up that can one day argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

I like green.

I wish my stock portfolio grows at the pace of this thread...

Anyways I'll try The Wall some other time; thanks for the recommendation. And no, I am not into progressive rock, should I look into it?

owned and owned. Now X, do u have any opinion about the Gateway/Emachine merger? I am interested in investing in that company but there are some negative aspect of the company that kept me away from doing so. Would u think it will be a good investment?

Guys, as "logic" is 1/4 of the sub-categories of Philosophy, then as previously stated, we agree that it is related. I think 1/4 is remote, however, and not as strong of a correlation as you left-brainies like to infer.

In any case consider the following...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phil_index.htm

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...definition.htm

Guys, I think there's more supporting *evidence* here for you to hopefully understand that defining Philosophy is open to interpretation and debate, and as I believe, you guys are considering it more on the technical side, as per engineering and math (as I've stated all along, left brainies), which another third-party source has also stated as "not entirely acceptable."

WOW! WOW! It seems I'm not the only one.

Seriously did you catch that, let me rephrase "MOST OF THE TIME, PHILOSOPHY IS TREATED TOO MECHANICALLY." Ya'll arguing this matter fall into that class of "most of the time." You're unbalanced left-brain folks, which by default as *unbalanced* naturally introduces flaws (or more prone to error) in your line of thinking.

Again, I consider the above description in line with right brain thought, and not extreme left brain logical thought.

Especially, "broad generality" is not in line with Delta's firm statements regarding unambiguous, incontravertible syntax, with no room for error. Unambiguous syntax is left brained *overly* logical thinking, while broad generalities tend to fit more in the right brain side of the spectrum - my argument all along. i.e., "keep dreamin'"

http://www.onu.edu/a+s/philosophy/ph...l#Introduction


I believe there are certain aspects of philosophy like metaphysics and epistemology that correlate more appropriately with right brain tendencies.

For you to state with absolute certainty that I have no idea what Philosophy is, is well, close-minded, arrogant, one-sided, and ignorant (gosh have we seen this repeated theme over and over and over?)

I can only imagine how Delta is going to find a way to denounce this one? He should be promoted to professor at twistthefacts.edu, or was that twistthewords.edu, all related, iwannabeleague.com (not ivy league) schools.

I'm actually suprised though that none of you Delta supporters have a found *flaw* that no matter what the question, or the argument, Delta attempts to weasel his way out, many times under ridiculous tenses, and can even discount the dictionary and other commonly accepted literary texts (or completely avoids the direct question), yet he's still in line with *logic*, at least according to *your logic*?

It's a *left-brainy* fraternity party at twistthewords.edu, and I'm not invited. Damnet!

Lastly, Delta, I will concede that in terms of pure, raw, Philosophy, as you understand it and prefer to define it via your consistent style of verbose, you are more fluent on the subject than I am. I agree, however, I believe to an extreme - the extreme of being overly influenced and brainwashed by it, just as devout Christians are brainwashed via the bible on the other side of the spectrum. Can you admit that?

Where did I get "left-brainy" from?

Once again, I say, FREE YOUR MIND ... don't limit yourself to such extreme belief systems that you *have to* conform to one concept, one idea, one *model* or to be so weighted on one side of the spectrum. You are clearly one-sided (as has been stated about 14,000 times throughout these posts) whether you like to admit it to yourself, or not. Thus, as someone who doesn't know you, my outside evaluation should be of some value. If you like being that extreme left brained person then - best to ya! In any case, I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that being on the side of extreme (of any side of the spectrum) is unhealthy and flawed in its own right.

You know what? I spent more than two hours of my life fighting a fruitless battle. Before, when I argued with others on our differences, they would at least acknowledge that we worked in a common system, at least we would understand each other enough to talk it over like mature human beings.

It's funny how that my intentions are obvious to most, yet EDR puts words in my mouth and interprets my words into something else, when that's all he's been whining about in this entire thread. It's not like he's been quoting the entirety of any one else's threads either. What's more, the thing that he accuses me of (quoting out of context, selectively choosing my quotes), he writes a moment later:

And, rather than try to prove his claims that America is indeed tolerant of gays (with no data backup), he doesn't even try to disprove my link which shows that the religious still have their differences.

Of course, people that actually understand logic realize that the most complex arguments can be decomposed into logical statements; EDR seems to be taking what helps his argument and ignoring the other half of the deal. Typical behavior of the guy, it seems like. Selective and manipulative quotes in order to provoke ad hominems.

This quote cannot escape unscathed:

Bold parts highlighted by yours truly.

So, basically, I'm building a very powerful case - that EDR is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Those who read the evidence I have presented in this post would have to agree with me.

I'm done all I can on this thread. It's truly overwhelming to argue with EDR, and I feel my brain cells dying as I continue, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

can someone with a p4 laptop remind me what a cpu fan sounds like? its been so long since I heard mine.

anyway, here's my 2 pieces of troll bait. enjoy..... see you in another 22 pages.

DATHERON:

You wrote:

We've spent two days now. It's interesting being 13 again. I'm having fun at this level - so to speak.

Oh, so you need familiarity or you can't handle? As stated, you are too stuck in format and *model*, and if someone throws it at you in a format you are not familiar with you don't know how to deal? And therefore, because you don't know how to deal, I'm wrong? You and your backward insecure group should stone me to death, literally. Do you understand the hidden meaning of that?

Obvious to *most*, there's that twisting of words again and insecurity factor. I'm all alone here, and still confidently holding my own. TWO people in this forum agree with you, and that's the *most* in the grand scheme of things? You are in *fallacy* land.

Name me one time, I put words into your mouth, one time, please, I challenge you. NOW!

Don't pull your quotes, that I've quoted and twist the words around like Delta frequently does. I do not rephrase and rewrite sentences like you and Delta do. I've never taken an original sentence in our arguments and rotated, re-arranged, and ommitted words in order to make my own supporting arguments, as you (and especially Delta) repeatedly have. That's the flaw right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDR
And, Dath would not have written, "I have provided example after example that philosophy is NOT logic."

DATH, YOU DID WRITE THAT, DIDN'T YOU? You now deny it? I'm confused?

You've done that all along, and I already called you on this once. Nice try! Delta does it like it's going out of style. Once again, it's not I who has taken one of your sentences or Delta's sentences and re-phrased them, telling you what you *really* meant by it. However, I *can* admit, that I (as is human nature) have found the materials appropriate to support my claims, AS HAVE YOU AND DELTA TO EXTREMES!

Isn't part of arguing making a position on a portion of the data present? Gosh I sound like you and Delta now. Well, it must be, because you two have done that repeatedly, and for you two to claim otherwise, is absolute 100% bunk!

Gees, talk about *re-writing*, Delta's already denounced the entire dictionary, and he once re-wrote a definition simply to keep the argument going. Which group is picking and choosing, and using only certain data to support their claims?

Hey, Dath, isn't it funny, how you (like Delta) left out my dictionary inclusion of *dis*? Isn't it funny how you completely avoided the argument raised there? You and Delta should get married - hay Gay marriage was a topic, right?. So, what about the fact that *dis* equals a negative? You still cannot come to terms with that widely accepted fact?

You had a major argument about disagreement being equivalent to two positives, which I disputed with public third-party data, and you've avoided that entire subject (like Delta) because you know were caught in a flaw. *We* can all see through this facade.

Your insecurity speaks loud and clear, and you use the word *hypocrite* just as Delta did in his times of need to CYA (Cover Your A**). Both of you need to stop talking about what you are sure everyone else *knows*, you show your flaws and insecurities via such actions, especially when you re-qrite their sentences for them and tell them what they meant - do you not realize that?

You're done as much as Delta and I have been done several times. Also, your *brain cells dying* is another oxymoron, when in consideration of a heated intellectual debate. On the contrary, it's this kind of contemplation that enhaces our neural synaptic connections, and thus, increases brain cell growth and activity, and helps us to live longer. Keeping our brains active, keeps us alive, and younger. Do the research!

I CANNOT WAIT TO SEE HOW YOU AND/OR DELTA WILL ADDRESS, WITH AN UNBIASED MIND - POST #315 IN THIS THREAD.

DATHERON:

Word of advice:

You can't debate with someone (EDR) who speaks in another language.