Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 17

Balh Blah. Unfortunately, for the most part, Delta and DATH do understand the level of language we are conversing in - unlike you - they just don't want to come to terms with many of the issues that question their belief system(s).

There's some merit to the fact that if I had the writing style of you or TotalNewB, I can safely bet more intelligent folks like Delta and Dath wouldn't even have responded to my commentary (a compliment to them). They wouldn't have given me the *time*. The fact that they have given me the time and obvious frustration, is a compliment, whether they have the balls to admit it, or not?

I have enough in-depth insight to keep them on their toes, which is evident in their continued desire to respond, regardless of the tone of the conversation.

EDR, please read their posts again. In fact, I suggest you read it a few more times because every post they make they are expressing their frustration with you language. They, and I, know that you write in common English, but whatever words you put together make no logical sense what-so-ever.

ClonedAcient, you are not qualified (truthfully, no offense) to get into this one. Just stay out of it, or learn by observation and gain some empiricial knowledge - pun intended.

It's nothing short of the obvious that you are relying on the commentary provided by the majority (which happens to be two or three people at this point) and therefore, by default you are unduly influenced as a *Chinese 10.7 Yr. Old* HA!, which is flawed and is not based on your *own* knowledge of your *own* opinions.

You are out of your league. Just watch and learn. When you have gotten to *our age* and have discussed and contemplated such issues with many people over the years, your initial aura will come across differently and have more merit.

EDR, what you have just said contradicts whatever "open-mindedness" and "logic" you seemed to stress so much about. In fact, you rely on your wishy washy personal insults to get your frustrated message across because I, in this case, can actually refer to several other people's messages and interpret it to my standing while you are all by your lonely self trying to defend whatever pile of dictionary definition you can dig up. Give up, old man, its time for you to learn a lesson in life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have no time to deal with your level too. I'm more interested in Dath and Delta responding to more advanced and intricate issues we are discussing. By the way, you, like many others on this site, have a comprehension problem. Logic and open mindedness are contradictory - did you realize that?

So, you too, discount *the dictionary*? You are as sad?

Digging up a pile of dictionary definition? So what do you rely on? Have you ever ... One of the best signs of a well-rounded individual, especially in the corporate world is the ability to admit when you're wrong (I've done this in several of these posts) and to research data and present such data. I've done that too herein.

And you say ... several other people's messages? Not including you and NewB, THEN it's down to 2 or 3. Sorry to bust your bubble. I don't have time for you and the others in that class. Someday you will enjoy debates in college.

For now, I must focus on the level of my cohorts in crime, but then again, my equating Delta to a certain level of intelligence, when he hasn't disclosed any proof about anything he's done or accomplished in *real life* scenarios may be my own error. His/Her avoidance has its own obvious signals.

No offense guys, but no more responses to you, NewB and others in that class - I need to have a non-Chinese 10.7-yr-old conversation.

It was fun messing with NewB earlier tonight before dinner, but we're back to the nitty gritty.

You know, I read the first five pages of this thread, was going to read more, but then I figured you guys are probably kind enough to summarize the past 238497291 pages. Or at least provide a humorous response to this request. So, please, tell me if acura-something replied again with his graduate-level intelligence or if Clonedancient has felt the first signs of puberty. Do tell. Tell me all.

Oh, and if you don't mind, would you tell me where you're all from, how old you are, what you do, etc? A more comprehensive "a/s/l", if you will. dashby, EDC, X, etc... You've found a new fan and I wish to emulate you guys in all your full blown glory.

Or at least join in on this absolutely humorous thread. Thankya.

I agree, we owe that to you and ourselves! But the way things are going, and the responses to come, I don't know?

Hey, we agree on Clonedancient and puberty issues! HA!

Gosh, is that real insight or repeating me? I've been asking that of Delta for days now, to his/her continued insecure avoidance.

Funny. I don't think it's about full blown glory, at least in my opinion. In fact, I'm in the minority (of a very select few) on this one, and I'm still here. I'm assuming sarcasim in your text, but I don't know?

Yes, alot of heated debates, but truly my intent is for those left-brainies to open their minds. You have NOT seen me trying to impose a religion, or extreme belief system on any one - only for people to have an open-minded middle-ground mentality, where both left and right brained tendancies can be viewed with an open mind and without bias or discrimination! Although I think I'm wishing for the impossible, at least with respect to those participating in this forum.

Oh my. I was BORN in 1981. LATE 1981, at that.

And what do you mean, EDR? Sarcasm? From moi? [note: It was only after a long search through the emoticons on the right that I found an appropriately winking smiley face. So kewwwwwwlllllll~~~] No, no, more like

Rock on.

lol

It has all come down to this: EDR, do you believe in the universality of logic, and admit that all your statements adhere to logic, the same logic that we adhere to? If not, then there can exist no discussion. It is only possible for a discussion to exist between those who agree on the universality of logic. You have claimed several times that logic is only distantly related to philosophy and you are arguing on a philosophy without the bounds of logic. If that is so then there can exist no discussion. Even though believing in that is wrong in the first place, but seeing that there is no way to convince you so, I am left with no choice but to ask you this one final question. If your answer is no then this conversation ends here.

The last twelve words of the first sentence are yours, yet you started the sentence with "You have claimed several times" Show me anywhere that I wrote the last twelve words. Therefore, to conclude with "if that is so" is not appropriate as the entire basis was manipulated, once again, to serve your ego.

Delta, you've got to stop this horrible habit of yours! You really continually undermine your credbility when you *create* sentences from scratch and tell someone that is what they said to you. How many times do you have to be scolded on that issue? Did you not understand the references to twistthewords.edu?

Delta, you have no ethical arguing style. I refer you to post #296 in this thread. Please re-read post #296.

Yeah, yeah, it all ends here, I've heard that before, but you just needed to get that last word in, didn't you, for the 15th time?

The fact that your tone is so ridiculous, that only YOU get to *ask* the questions, including the *final* question when you've still not addressed at least 30 direct questions that have been posed to you, you are out of bounds. You are out line! Funny how you, once again, said absolutey nothing about posts #315, #319 or the *dis* data.

Do you not realize the underlying implication of *avoidance* in the course of an argument?

When you have fairly answered the many, many questions posed to you, which were asked prior to this question, and when you have disclosed who you are, then, and only then, may you have the ethical right to ask the final question. Until then you are way behind and owe common courtesy to those you are arguing with.

You want to follow a *rule* or a *model*, but yours is clearly this:

A.) Delta gets to provide the data that suits Delta, all other data is disregarded.

B.) Delta gets to choose the definitions he agrees with only, and can disregard the dictionary and create definitions that suit him.

C.) Delta does not have to answer direct questions.

D.) Delta does not have to tell anyone who he is, or anything about his *skills in any field*, but can come across as the supreme know-it-all authority on the subject in question!

E.) Delta gets to perform the questioning - no one else may.

That's a great *A,B,C.. model* Delta. That is how this conversation has been throughout. Is this really how you define a debate, Delta? Or is this some twisted, wanna-be, one-sided military interrogation that you'd like to live out vicariously through your computer?

EDR, all the questions that I have not answered (except for the one personal one), have been so ridiculous that I have no choice of answering except to point out the absurd assumptions underlying your question. Since you cannot even realize that you are bound by the rules of logic, you leave me no choice. I will not post any more responses.

What a sad cop-out!

(A) Delta = (B) Jargon = (C) Pretentious Language = (D) Circumlocutions = Dead End!

Hey, at least all the variables agree this time, so the problem has been solved.

Reading all 23 pages of this thread was the second most pointless thing I have done in my life. Getting a BSc in Information Systems from Kingston Uni was the first.

On the issue of P4 vs Pm:

Look come on, let's not beat around the bush.

Anyone that buys a laptop him/herself (and not gets one given to them by their company) is somebody who has some level of affinity to computers. I.e. is someone who has *some* level of passion for technology, or cool gadgets, call it what you will.

Now you coming here to ask whether or not there is a big difference between a P4 and a Pm machine, is kind of an end within the means isn't it?

You come to ask for reassurance,... everyone knows that Pm1.7 is enough to run word. You know that, hell the guys at Dixons could have told you that, but no, that isn't the issue.

You came here because you know, and you know that we know, and you know that you want to hear us say that we know that you knowing is ok, because it is out there for all to see.

That when you buy gadgets, you wanna buy the best there is, the fastest, biggest baddest, that's what you want. And you would have nothing else. You want all the power you can get or die trying. Oh yes.

So, eventhough you know already, you now have our assurance, go and get a P4.

Oh and PS:// One day someone will come here and say things which will confuse and perplex. Heresy, blasphemy some will even call it. Pay no heed to this man and his ilk. For he will be of the kind that did not listen to their inner voice, did not follow the will, for that antagonist will have made a purchase with restraint. Wrought with misery, tightfistedness, and greed he is the one haunted day and night by his karma,... and it is he who seeking solace comes with the worm tongue to lure the pure and naive into the same mistakes of his own.


And thus goes the tale of pentium.


But then again, I'm not the sharpest knife in the cookie jar.

What's the equation for Dead End above? Can we substitute variable A with Gold?

I really like that! Great quote. May I ask who the author is?

I especially like the "confuse and perplex" part too, which is in line with Jargon, and Circumlocutions. Sounds like I'm the one calling Delta's jargon blasphemy (indirectly), no? Great analogy, me being more on the right than *he* is. Hmmm.

No, EDR, I'm really done. I'll let you have the last word on the issue, as I don't think any amount of evidence and argument on my part will bring you around. Why argue against a stone wall, right?

What I suggest, though, is that you check out:

www.infidels.org

Specifically:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=64

Their Philosophy forum. There, you can perhaps argue with people that have spent decades on philosophy (as you yourself claim) and would probably find more people to talk about this subject than on a notebook forum. I used to be an active poster there about two years ago.

The discussion is quite stimulating. Be prepared, though, since the posters on that forum will take you "to another level" above myself and possibly Delta.

My, my, it would appear that someone has trodden these withered paths before me, and aquired his fair share of naysayers. Lest I believe my own scripture to be in vain, ye hail all the new circle of "yes men" to this newcomer that is I.

Ok I'll stop messing with you I make that **** up, and sorry to dissapoint you but I'm not Delta. Lest you still say it ain't so, I posted it here first:

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=14142&page=2

On the 3.0 3.2HT weekly a$$ 'jivin contest.


Deeming to have informed you amply,.. forthwith;

l8tr

Hi Dath:

No argument here.

Your last post would have been the last word on the matter, was it not for this post, but since this post is not about the argument, then you had the last word. Wait do I sound like Gold? Gold, you are very talented with language, especially if you authored that one statement I like. You are quite witty my friend!

No seriously Dath, thanks for the tip towards the other forum, but frankly, I'm not interested. While I'm guilty of getting sucked into a huge senseless debate over the past few days, and while it's been fun being 13 again, it was a waste of time and energy for all us - admitted - agreed. There are better things to do in life than to *argue* with others about esoteric concepts that really none of us know for sure if they are absolutely right or wrong.

In addition, as I previously admitted to Delta, I'm not as fluent as you guys on the topic of Philosophy as you like to define and discuss it. I have NOT had years of experience discussing Philosphy, per se, specifically in the logical/mathematical mindset. When I think of Philosophy, I do not always immediately think of esoteric logic and technical relations - you know this about me already.

As it's obvious, I believe Philosophy includes BOTH left brain and right brain qualities, and I think Delta has come from the left side only - wait have I said that 100 times now? That is all. My experience has been more from the right side in this regard.

I'm so very glad that I found some confirmation from a valuable, reputable, third-party source (as previously posted):

Most of the time, it seems that philosophy is pursued without passion and without love, as if it were a technical subject like engineering or simple mathematics. This is not entirely acceptable.

In any case, with respect to religion/theology/new age/metaphysical concepts, etc. I have had ALOT of dicussions with astute folks for YEARS, and have studied extensive written materials, listened to CD's, and watched Discovery channel at nauseam. That's an *area* of Philosophy that I've had alot of experience in, and that is what I meant when I said that I did.

Still though, I'm not a member of any other forum in that regard simply because there are people hiding behind false identities (Delta), and you don't know who you're arguing with, or whether they're truly 13 or not, and you can't hear tonality or see body language.

This is my first experience on a forum talking about these kinds of things, so I would probably get creamed by that other forum if they all have that extreme left side tendency, which from the sounds of it, if you were a member, is most likely the case.

Lastly, as my first experience talking about such heavy matters on a forum, I have a bad taste in my mouth in dealing with someone like Delta, and I would assume there's alot more like him out there, especially on the forum scene, so I would not be interested, but thanks anyway.

Again, look at his record. He signed up in January 2004 (a few weeks ago) and has over 650 posts. I do not want to be that guy! Scary. Sorry, but scary, and knowing I now have over 100 posts in a similar timeframe, that scares me.



No hard feelings

Oh man... I know I am breaking my previous promise to not to post anymore. But this thing is like an addiction. (I know you can already tell by looking at my posting record). Anyway this would be my last comment. I feel compelled to say it because metaphysics is my favorite branch of philosophy.

Metaphysics deals with the fundamental nature of things underlying reality, appearances and experiences. It includes ontology and epistemology. These subjects are perculiar in this respect: they deal with things beyound the realm of sensations and experiences. To understand anything in metaphysics, pure reason untainted by empirical experiences is used. Basically, philosophers use what little they know and try to formulate more incontrovertible (the word is spelled with an "o") truths. But this is not easy, hence there are a lot of different theories out there, ranging from the two-world theory of the dualists to the monad theory of Leibnitz.

Due to the nature of metaphysics, only pure, cold, rational logic and synthetic reasoning can be used to arrive at anything. Randomness and intuition is of no use in metaphysics. Experiences and sensations cannot help one understand metaphysics, because this field deals with what underlies reality and what underlies thought.

Feel free to respond however you want. I will read it, but will post no more.