Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 19

Delta, you are hopeless and helpless. See post #296:

http://notebookforums.com/showpost.p...&postcount=296

Can you deny the items outlined therein regarding your debating style (with truth, honesty and integrity)?

What the hell kind of argument is that? You are just saying things, providing no proof whatsoever. Following your style I can say that you are infact a rotten potato. Show proof!! Anyway you are still avoiding explaining the paradox, which obviously means that you do not know how to get yourself out of it.

You have not proved ONE THING, at ANY TIME in this last 25 pages of text.

As *we* all know, it's been filled with your jargonistic surmises and circumlocutions, only. You quote who you want as absolute authority to support YOUR *beliefs*, but discredit any other substantive texts, third-party non-biased materials, and the dictionary as well when it does not suit you. What kind of argument is that? My God, pun intended.

And, when I put you on the spot to prove something I question you on, you simply avoid the question altogether, and post more idiot jargon. You've already admitted to avoiding questions, repeatedly. You are sad.

Once, again, you owe the common courtesy of answering someone's questions that you are debating with first (since they were posed LONG before yours) before you become so demanding about who needs to address another one of your theories. You are way behind, idiot!

Delta, you can have the last word on this one. You truly are a waste of time, breath, and S_men. You are a brick wall, and are so close minded, you will be bitter, unhappy, and a secret, hiding, insecure forum junky your entire life (go ahead add to you 700 posts in 3 weeks). Loser!

I'm going to pull a Delta and say, "I'm never posting again on this thread." But, I actually mean it. It's not that I don't want to, it's that trying to have an open-minded, intelligent debate with someone who has the mentality equivalent of a 12 year old, and will only let the data they want to be involved in the discussion, is too challenging - even for the most patient of folks.

Delta, u are getting dragged into it again. Like i have said before, you were simply talking to a rock who cannot comprehend what comes out of its mouth.

Ahh...why should I answer any of your questions directly? Your questions are not even VALID!!!! I can only point out the invalidity of your questions, but I will not justify them by answering them. SO MANY STATEMENTS ARE MADE BY YOU WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTS WHATSOEVER. This has been truly a waste of time.

No way I'm reading all of this... but with 20+ pages of posts I hope it was determined that dasby is a biased moron....

The Banias chip is a much better engineered chip period. We'll be seeing variants that use some of it's design features/tricks in servers soon...

That said, if you want muscle get a muscle car (have fun in the 1/4 mile and not much else) .... if you want balance buy a balanced design.

IMHO, the pentium m is more balanced and blows the door off of the p4 in notebook use. But then I place value on battery life AND performance in a notebook (as well as noise and heat).

Someone silly said that if you worry about battery life and weight then get a handheld... I say if you are always plugged in and worried about performance then get a desktop..........

Point is buy what makes sense for you and your use. Someone that can't understand why the banias would be preferable for some in a notebook just doesn't get it....

If you still want to talk about PM and P4, then by all means start a new thread. This one had gone way off-topic...

I am not gonna spend $2000 on a lappy just so I can sit on the god damn couch and play video games. If I wanted to do that I would just go fire up my desktop. If you havn't notice PM CAN play games. My friend has a dell 8600 with and 1.7m and it plays all his games fine (halo, max payne2 etc..) I don't know why you guys care so much that some people need long battery life, small size and weight for college and other stuff and still be able to play games fine.

EDR is the culprit of it all

Naw, he was the one who hijacked the thread with his stupidity.

dashby was the idiot who started this thread and debate because he can't understand simple logic.

PM rules!

Pentium M versus Pentium 4 and so much more....

** sorry. i realize this is a late entry in the race - and this is probaby a dead thread... can't help but speak out. it's one of those amendment things... **

P4 vs. P-M?

I am a linux kernel developer. For me, the important thing is compiling linux kernels over and over again, after applying patches, fixing device drivers, etc., etc.

My 1.6GHz Pentium M, with 768M of RAM, time after time out compiles my AthlonXP 2800+, loaded with 1G of RAM. This is not a benchmark. It's my real world, real life, I get paid to do this job, empirically observed, and gathered data.

On battery power or on AC power, rain or shine, the result is the same. Clearly an apples and oranges comparison, as I do not have a P4 here at my home. However, we do have 3.0GHz P4's at the office, and yes, they are far more brisk than either the 1.6GHz Pentium M, or the AthlonXP 2800+ (on par with my Athlon64 3000+, however).

But the bottom line is, I can get my work done on my laptop without a huge performance penalty, and to me, that is what is important. So, I think someone some pages back said it best and I'll paraphrase - "pick what works best for you and your situation, and what you want to do with your notebook."


Concerning performance as an analogy to Ferrari performance... I grew up dirt poor, but have done quite well for myself since then, having been able to own such fine sports as a '92 3000GT VR-4 Twin Turbo, a '96 BMW M3, a '98 BMW M3, several smatterings of smaller sports cars, and most recently a 2004 WRX STi. Though nowhere near the "prestige and nobility" of the Ferrari, my latest ride rivals the performance of the likes of the Aston Martin DB9, Bentley Continental GT, Ferrari 612, and Mercedes CL600
(euro sports car references at car and driver
and
the STi references at car and driver )
Still able to hit 0-60 in a theoretical 4.6 seconds, already having hit 145 mph and having room to go faster, and being able to do a 1/4 mile in about 13 seconds yet giving me the payola to get my Pentium M notebook, its all I really need right now. Heck, even if I had $250K to spend on a Ferrari...at this point, I know that I would get a 2004 BMW M3, put a turbocharger kit in it, and smoke that $250K Ferrari any given day. Anyway, enough of that, lest I be accused of being a braggart and having an ego.


As to the larger, and very tangential and off topic philosophical, metaphysical, transcendantel debate(s)...

First thing is a note to EDR. It might help you in future discussions with other said 13 year olds to not always construe "you said" to mean that you "literally said" such and such statement or comment.

Now to start with, what is the point of communication. Is it not to convey information? What is the point if you have hidden your intended communication within indecipherable riddles of linguistics and semantics??? As I quote you...

Perhaps I missed the point of communication all these years, but I thought that what person A told person B was in an effort to imbue (there's a dictionary word for you) the other with knowledge... So that person A would indeed KNOW what person B was saying. So that person A would KNOW what the meaning and intentions of person B were in full context and detail. Thus, if person A did not come away from a conversation with understanding, then there was NO COMMUNICATION. And I might venture, since you poked into religion, is not hiding knowlede in your statement akin to masking that knowledge? Or giving a half or misleading knowledge? So then, when you convey your thoughts in one of your arguments and debates, is it your intent to communicate misleading and meandering commentary?

When any of the few (I will say few - as you slammed ClonedAncient for saying several when in reality the literal number was...I think you said 2...so yes, several would not apply - of course here, I say few, because there were more than 2 parties with which you at some point or another had some form of debate/argument/miscommunication with) tried to establish commonality and common ground, you pretty much threw it in their collective faces...and rather rudely.

In some type of response to your commentary on billionaires, wealth, success, and higher education (I will clarify here and say that my intention is not to link any one thing, i.e., billionaires, wealth, etc., with the other - I am merely naming them as articles in a list), I looked up the top 125 riches people in the world out of the Forbes 2004 World's Richest People list.

From the top 125 billionaires, about 39% (this is not a hard and fast number - I could have counted wrong and you could recount and prove me wrong, EDR, which I know is dangerous given your penchant for attacking literal realization of said statements) were either only a high school graduate, a bachelor's level college graduate, or a college dropout when they "made themselves" as financially successful people (they might not be the happiest people in the world...but, I don't know them personally so I won't even attempt to conjecture, will you, EDR?).

52% of the top 125 aquired their wealth through inheritance. Ha, they didn't even have to work for it.

And 9% had at least a Masters degree or higher before "making themselves" into successes. Of course, again, these numbers could be wrong. I did manually count 65 out 125 billionaires to have inherited their money, and 11 of the 125 having a higher level education, thus leading me to the percentage of self-made idiots (oops, I meant successess, but you knew that) indirectly, so my math could be off.

Yep, I only have a bachelors of science in engineering and aced my engineering classes - but hey, I didn't have a lot of real world experience counting billionaires until just now.

To continue this, I am going to quote what you said to acurarsx. This pretty much helped to start this whole thing, though admittedly, acurarsx carries the ultimate blame for the commenting with, "When you're in graduate-level computer engineering courses, call me...:"

So what exactly is your meaning here?? You start this paragraph with something about his extreme ego, which I perceive to be a negative thing. You follow with the fact that you DON'T care about a Ph.D or Masters degree - then end with 3 personalities. Are these 3 personalities supposed to represent people who have Ph.D's or Masters? Or not? My guess, is that they represent the NOTS, in which case, I would have to guess that you are trying to illustrate how a Ph.D or Masters does not translate directly to (financial) success, as you have defined it (by naming 3 very wealthy people). If my W.A.G. (wild *ss guess) is off the mark, by all means, please confuse me further.

Not one? Are you sure about that? You're positive? Because...you are an expert? Because...you know them all personally? Because...Forbes magazine is your "bible?" Well dammit all, cause you are incorrect...

Here are the billionaires (notice the plural form of the word) varying with Masters and Ph.D's, who are - as you define it - self made financial successes:

Warren Buffett
Berkshire Hathaway
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Columbia University, Master of Science

Charles Ergen
EchoStar
University of Tennessee Knoxville, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Wake Forest University, Master of Business Administration

Sumner Redstone
Viacom
Harvard University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Harvard University, Doctor of Jurisprudence

Philip Knight
Nike
University of Oregon, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business Administration

Gordon Moore
Intel
University of California Berkeley, Bachelor of Arts / Science
California Institute of Technology, Doctorate

Hasso Plattner
SAP
University of Karlsruhe
University of Karlsruhe, Master of Science

Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg L.P.
Johns Hopkins University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Harvard University, Master of Business Administration

Peter Nicholas
Boston Scientific
Duke University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, Master of Science

Walter Haefner
Computer Associates
University of Lyon, Bachelor of Arts / Science
University of Zurich, Master of Business Administration

Jeffrey Skoll
Ebay
University of Toronto, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business Administration

Vladimir Lisin
Novolipetsk Steel Mill
Siberian Metallurgical Institute, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Russian Academy of Economics, Doctorate

And incidentally, have you read anything about Donald Trump? Or are you just spouting at the mouth, EDR? His father already had a good thing (a successful investment in affordable housing real estate) going and Donald was brought up learning the business with ol' pappy. When his father died, "The Don" took over what was already running...it's not like he started from square one. There was already a clientale, money, real estate, and resources. He had learned a lot already from his father. It's not that I am not giving him any credit, but I cannot equate him with Joe Bloggs who dropped out of college and is now working at McD's because SuperCorporation X cannot see his potential - primarily because I don't know anything about Joe Bloggs.

And Rockeller? Did you even look up anything about him? At the age of 12 he had saved up $50 from doing work for neighbors. In terms of 2004 dollars, that is equal to about $1042 . You can check it by going to this site:

(inflation conversion factors )

Did you have that much money at the age of 12, EDR? You know I didn't. I already said that I was dirt poor. He was also something of a math prodigy and actually ended up at the age of 16 attending what in 1855 was a college. And again, he learned a lot from his father early on - things that helped jump start him. Once again, I am not discrediting his "meager" start - I am saying that it did not start at a null state. I had to borrow money for college. If at anytime, I couldn't borrow money, or couldn't find a job while going to college, I would have had to drop out and work as well. My dad did not have his own business to pass on to me. My dad did not have any of this knowledge to pass on to me. What does any of this mean? Squat. Because I am just one example, and who the heck knows what would happen? It's easy to look back in retrospect and go, "ooh, yeah, that guy is a billionaire and all he has is a high school diploma..."

And Bill Gates...well, someone earlier already establish that his great talent was marketing and the grand ability to take other people's great ideas.

Some more of your words...

Yeah. Someone did name you ONE. And I named you 11.

I find it funnier that you have no idea of what you are talking about but speak it with such confidence. Note I made no commentary on the actual words, or perceived words coming out of, or going into, your mouth.

So really, it seems, most of the successful (as measured in terms of $$$) people actually inherited their money - well, at least from the top 125 billionaires. Most of them did not obtain their wealth the hard way, pulling up their bootstraps with only a high school diploma or a partial college degree. And what was said was quite a blanket statement. Hmm, seems recall quite a few broad statements without backup do originating from you every now and then, EDR... I quote:

Like who? Wrong about what? Which theory? Or, let me backup. Was it a theory? Or a hypothesis? There is a difference? But of course, you knew that. And in what context were they wrong? Was it a minor dispute? Was it a major rewrite of a theory? Back to the drawing board as they say? Gee, looks like stranded statement without any backup to me.

I mean, how in the world did you come about this knowledge? Do session musicians often discuss this type of thing in between recording songs? Is this what you guys talk about at your water cooler at work? Scientists in 2004: are they wrong or are they right?

Let see what other silly comments you make... Oh yeah:

Really? Wow. You know all those people? What are your qualifiers? Who is this majority? The majority of people who can afford to go to school, and then do go to school? The majority of people who can afford to go to school, but then do not go to school, because they have daddy's trust fund or are just waiting in line to work the company? The majority of people who cannot afford to go to school, but manage to get to school somehow? The majority of people who cannot afford to go to school, and never do go to school?

And just what is the exact level of ambition and drive of each person?? And how do you know this? Did you take an exit poll? Outside of a grocery store? Outside a college bar? Outside a ghetto bar? Outside a nude bar?

Somehow you contend that we, here on the forum, cannot possibly pretend to understand what you write to us (that which we can actually see and can read in all of its cipher and childlike fervency)? Yet you somehow seem to understand the minds of countless people you have never met??

You maintain that we cannot know what you mean, because we don't have the benefit of seeing body gestures, facial gestures, etc., etc., to help further clarify your thought interpretations, inferences, and intimations? But even without ever seeing these people, anything they've written, not even their names - and just presuming (or is that ASSuming) they exist, you know these wondrous things about them? I am impressed. Or is this another blanket statement?

Pentium M versus Pentium 4 and so much more...

CONTINUED....


Ok, I can try to surmise the meaning here, but without the benefit of your super sensitive abilties and keen awareness of people not even around me - it's dangerous at best...but here goes. I'm thinking that the above quoted statement is intimating that and argument, analagous to a war, a fight, a battle, cannot have some type of common ground - cannot have some type of agreed upon structure or formality by which it operates. That to have such a structure in place therefore would mean that there is no disagreement, no war, no fight, and no battle. Am I close? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

The last time I checked, things such as the rules of engagement did/do exist, there are also provisions from the Geneva Convention concerning treatment of prisoners, as well as agreements founded in NATO that are there to facilitate some sort of boundaries by which the war shall be fought. They are not agreements as that answer the question of who will control the oil in the middle east. They are not agreements that answer the question of who is allowed to stock pile nuclear arms. They are not agreements that answer any political, military, or otherwise worldwide struggle or dissent among countries and leaders.

They are an agreement on a "mode" of operation. Of what is fair and decent. Of what is allowable, what is tolerable, what is atrocious, and what is punishable as a crime. They are agreements that define "demilitarized zones," and peace zones, and safe havens for refugees. They are agreements that help to protect the prisoners of war - and somehow police the conflicting sides from carrying out tortures and experiments such as occurred during WWII.

They are tenuous at best, and no - indeed both parties can agree, yet no one can truly enforce the agreement, as that would imply one side has dominance over another - hence the ability to enforce. But they are a minimal set of basic premises, hopes perhaps, that each side believes the other side will honor and uphold. That if the US defines nuclear weapons as out the question, then so shall other countries - for the sake of the entire of world, not just about one country against another.

What was initiated as I guess a personal response, grew into a philosophical discussion. This begs the question, how shall one conduct a philosophical discussion? It is not an "argument." It is not just randomized offerings of information - but a discussion is an attempt to facilitate communicate as well as education - and at the minimum, to help both sides understand the other and agree that they cannot agree (which, I know, is a paradox - but, the disagreement was specific to an article of discussion, and the agreement too is specific, neither are generalities such as "I don't like you," "well I don't like you," "but we'll agree to work together" - more like, "I don't like that you listen to music so loudly," "and I don't like that have the tv on when we study," "ok, we'll agree that when we study together, the music will be turned down and the tv will be off").

With regards to your references of third party documentation, there were several offerings of such articles to you. Philosophy in general. Specific philosophers: Kant, Hume, etc. Books on the discipline of philosophy, as a course of study as opposed to philosophy as a "way" of life or an influential belief system of sorts. For a long time, you would only cite the dictionary as your source... But, if you are going to debate about philosophy, why would you not use philosophers, books about philosophy, or philosophy textbooks, as reference? If you are going to carry on a proper philosophical discussion, then you would want to adhere to the realm defined as such...and not bring in articles that have not been defined beforehand (meaning hundreds of years previous, I don't think Socrates used a dictionary).

It is not that the "dictionary" is invalidated simply because of some arbitrary notion. It is due to the nature of the venue. Shall I bring boxing gloves to a wrestling match? Shall I wear combat boots for my 100m dash? In an ordinary discussion or argument, sure, everyone would want to reference the dictionary. But as I have begun to understand, in terms of this discussion, as structured to be a philosphical discussion - rests on other premises and predilections.

Insider information, huh? That's funny. So, did Kant just drive up to a telephone booth and place a call late at night... "Hey, here's the definition of skeptic you should use." Again, the venue is philosophy proper by which you should define skeptic in terms of the study of philosophy. The study started by people such as Socrates, who didn't just fall out of bed one day and decide on a definition of skeptic. But as has been noted, each ascending generational philosopher built on that which preceded him, or her: either reinforcing it, redefining it, or possibly negating it altogether and starting from scratch. But in no way does a philosopher pursue this path without first pursuing the past. So, whatever definitions and ideals about the definition of skeptic in terms of the actual study of philosophy, and not just the "I'm loafing on the couch eating cheetoh's thinking about up to get the remote to change the channel because Jerry Springer sucks but I'm preoccupied thinking about metaphysics" philosophy of everyday life.

What? Why have you brought this into the venue?

Thank goodness for freedom of speech so I can call other people names like that?

Hell...just as long they look white, then it's cool, they must be like me...an American. Ah, who cares if they just came over from Germany and don't know the language. You probably won't hear many people say, "hey there you darn, damn, darn farrrfromgrooving weinerschnitzle kid!"

First of all...you know for a fact and can readily name the philosophers who "interpreted differently the texts that came before them? I do not think this to be true. I would say that each subsequent philosopher has built upon the former - as is typical, people usually build upon the precedent set before them. Please, name these philosophers who throughout the ages just interpreted differently the philosophers before them. A disagreement on a point is not necessarily the same as a different interpretation of the same point. The disagreement may be a refutal of the entire point and the introduction of an entirely new proposition. This is not a different interpretation, nor is it a re-interpretation. This is a new interpretation. Most definitely, a re-interpretation implies remnants of the previous, and this is obviously not equal to a new interpretation. I won't even try to define "different interpretation," because first I would have to define "different" in somewhat agreeable terms, which I don't think will happen.

Another to all this, however, goes back to the essence of communication. What is the intent of communication? Is it not to clearly and resolutely define, express, educate, pass on, or otherwise redirect information and knowledge? In one form or fashion, is not the ultimate goal of communication to send a signal that can be received and understood?

Regardless of the author, novelist, playwright, or writer, each must have at least some finite realm of meaning attached to the words that they write. It is possible that throughout history, each great writer has intentionally set out to create myriad meanings to each writing and perplex humanity as a whole for centuries. I think it rather likely, though, that each writer had primarly a few points to communicate - issues or lessons of morality, education, entertainment... whatever. If there is no ultimate limit, some type of absolute meaning, or meanings to what is written - then why should I trust the Shakespearean English Professor I had back in college? Should I trust him merely because he and a large majority have decided that Shakespeare's works follow interpretation A? While over at your university they taught Shakespeare according to interpretation B? While still at another university they followed interpretation C? You see this can go ad nauseam.

There must be some agreed upon absolute interpretation, or closed set of interpretations, that can be applicable. With regards to the Bible and Christianity... 2000? Where did this number come from? You've gotta qualify this. I think the term you used was 2000 different Christian religions? What defines a different Christian religion? An official doctrine? Or just a different in the name? e.g., Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, Lutheran Church in the Philippines. As per my understanding (which by all rights may be completely overshadowed by your wisdom and clairvoyance) is that this is one "denomination," namely the Lutheran Church - following the idealogy of Martin Luther.

But, regardless of how many disparaging and floundering denominations/sects/religions of Christianity, it's a terrible crime that there are so many interpretations of one book. There should not be. There should be an absolute. Why would an absolute God give you an absolutely undefinable book? There are clearly some definable traits, core tenets if you will, that bind the denominations/sects/religions together as being Christian... but under the scope of God the Almight and Jesus Christ... those are two very central and absolute characters in the Bible. Go back to the original Hebrew and Greek, which I have not personally done a lot of - a smidgeon - and the ambiguities that is the english language do not exist. There is a much more clear and consise ordering of thoughts and ideas... There are some absolutes.

Taking the discilpine of literary studies as a whole, there are these "scholars" that get together and meet various times a year and convene to discuss the study of literature in a very disciplined, almost scientific manner. The goal? To understand the true meanings to the great literary works. And, much more so than Christianity, which admittedly has many small books in one large bound book, the literary scholars do come to agreements. They find common themes and threads through these literary works. Take for instance Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Basically, it is a book about solving the overpopulation and hunger problem by serving up infants as food...on the surface. But go to of innumerable classes around the country, and you'll see they teach the same thing about it.

How is anybody supposed to interpret what you say when "the funny part [is] [you]'ve hidden the [meaning]" from everybody such that if he, or she, tries to understand the meaning, you can call them "[a]rrogan[t]?"
.

Pentium M versus Pentium 4 and so much more...

CONTINUED....


Yeah...exactly who is feeling insecure? And needing to puff up his feathers? And feed his ego? Me mighty. Me started successful business. Me have executive position. Me older than you, not consider that by time you my age, you can achieve much much more - but me very open minded, me insist.

For the record, I have dealt with multi-million dollar deals, probably not more than 5 million I'd say (semi-conductor fab equipment - the stuff Intel uses to make cpu's). I've also done design work on products and projects worth millions of dollars. Yes, I know what it means to have the pressure of millions of dollars on my shoulders.

No, I've never been in an executive position, but then, I'm not old enough to where anybody would put in that kind of position - but, that also means that at an early age (24) I was handling multi-million dollar deals. And though so not vast and so wide, as far as overseas I have traveled to France and Spain, and pretty much the entire southern U.S. and much of the West Coast here in the states.

And as far as arguing skills in terms of business...supply and demand is much more different than educate and convince. That is, you have a product that I don't want, you can use your arguing skills to show me how I need the product for future investment, improvement, etc., etc. But you likely won't change my mind, even if I buy your product, that right now I need that product. I would not be buying the product for now - but for later. Semantics you say? I don't know. Not really, I'd say, because projections may indicate that later, the price of your product may be higher. Or that your product may be in lower quantity (because of demand or yield), or lower quality. So all my reasons are for future use. And as long as it has a shelf life, and I can use it later, I'm ok with buying it now. Much like a gallon of peanut butter from Costco.

It appears, EDR, that you are talking about that everyday philosophizing that we all do... Not the actual "study of philosophy" as these third parties would define it:

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/Undergrad/s...hilosophy.html

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/phil/

http://www.phil.upenn.edu/undergrad.html

http://philosophy.evansville.edu/majors.htm

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/graduateprog.html

http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/fil/master.html

http://emerson.fas.harvard.edu/future.php

I could be wrong, but perhaps the way the universities qualify the study of philosophy, it is more about "critical thinking" than any other meaning you've proposed or otherwise claimed to have proven.

Your offer of third-party written and public materials was primarily "the dictionary" for a greater part of your rhetoric. One source? Even if several dictionaries from different publishers, that qualifies as ultimately one inclusive source set. That, public material[s] does not make...public material, sure. Picky? Only as picky as you were with ClonedAncient. Admittedly, you did later throw in a link to a site, but predominantly through many entries of the discussion, you maintained the one source - the dictionary (which, in terms of the "study of philosophy" does not qualify to be within the scope of tools with which to pursue a true philosophical discussion). As for the left-right brain material...what evidence have you provided except for what you know as knowledge from your mother? Not that I doubt your mother's credibility, rather I doubt yours. You have not provided any form of periodical or concrete evidence such as an American Medical Association article, nor a New England Journal of Medicine article, or any other such "proof" as you have desired and demanded of everybody else. And the empirical observation and human experience is your own...

Despite your opinions, the universities clearly define the study of philosophy as a more rigid discipline in the sense that it does require something of a sequential ordering and evidentiary, not just a random invention of notion and claimed proof.

After all I have said, I want to be extra careful not to get myself into more trouble than I must already be in. So I say that it is in my mediocre and meagerly meandering methodology and minimal intellect, that I likely misconstrue your words concerning philosophy to sound much more like a "study of the psychology of philosophy, or "philosophy as a cultural phenomenon and belief system"... but seemingly not about critical thinking.

I'm sorry. When? I guess you probably have admitted your fallacies here and there, I just been so blinded by your many mis-statements that this is all I see.

Again, why is this even necessary? So what race are you? No...really. Where did your original ancestry come from before they moved here to America. Unless, you can trace all of your ancestry to two Native Americans, your particular roots started in some other country from which they migrated over here for a better life... A life, I would guess, where they wouldn't see persecution or ridicule, or could at least minimize it. Maybe even to get away from mind-benders like you. But hey, thank you for breeding hate and racism into what is meant to be a colorless, race-less, faceless forum.

Yeah, funny thing. You quote yourself as the authority and use the dictionary as the primary source of third party non-biased materials... Oh wait... I guess your dispensation of knowledge concerning left-right brain functions didn't come from the dictionary, it came as second hand knowledge that was never proven... Much like these other heart-warming statements of yours:

*Isn't it funny (or at least worth noticing) how the most successful entrepeneurs have little to no college education.

*Well, again, not one of our current BILLIONAIRES have a *Masters*.

*isn't it funny that all of our *most wealthy* individuals today have either a bachelor's degree only, or didn't even finish college?

*Many people can't afford to goto school, but are more tenacious that the majority. They are driven and ambitious.

So, in summation... EDR is superior to all others because he is an authority on music, left-right brain function, philosophy, religion, metaphysics, coding, business, reality TV, billionaire entrepreneurs, war, race, logic, sales, debate, cpu design, linguistics, semantics, and... did I leave anything out?

Of course, to be clear, I am being every bit facetious.

I know that you did not imply, infer, insist, say, or in any way directly or indirectly try to give the impression that you are an expert in any of the named articles in my list.

I also know that I do not know what you did imply, infer, insist, say, and in any way directly or indirectly try to communicate, so I can not be so arrogant as to understand your mind even and say that I either do understand, or do not understand. Understand? Good.

I realize that I probably do not exist and that once I finally get to sleep (now going on 36 hours of no sleep), I will never awake having only been an element of one of deltawalkerl's dreams or a figment of ClonedAncient's imagination. But by posing the possibility that I do not exist and positing the question of my origin, does that make me self aware? This does cause a dilemma, does it not? If I am self aware, does it mean that I now do exist?

Before you, EDR, deride me, I will make it plain and simple by saying that I make no stake, no claim, no matter how minuscule, no indication whatsoever that I am an expert in any single topic or element that I have discussed. Rather, I am every bit the student, absorbing as much as I can and echoing back what knowledge I may possess.

Yes, what I have tried to do is exercise what meager knowledge I believe I possess to contradict you, EDR, and only you, on a point by point basis. Why? Probably because at some point in the thread you irked me - most likely when you started pulling racism into the foray. Talk about a coward hiding behind a veil. What, did you get beat up as a kid by a bunch of asian boys or something? Or worse, by a bunch of asian girls? Why the polarized attack on ClonedAncient? You didn't need to take it there. For the record, I am not Chinese. But I am asian. I won't bother telling you of which country I originate, since I'm sure you'll insist your just an American and have no racial/ethnic origin... If there is one thing that being an American means, it is that I have a right be an American just as much as you do, and because I choose to be an American....what's that? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Cool, thanks founding forefathers. Hey, they're my founding forefathers, too. Whether by creation or evolution, do not both point to one ultimate origin? God vs. Primordial Seas... News at 11.

...
..
.

What an old topic to bring up. Im guessing most of the people, EDR, have already left the community. Good to see you here Dak.

I am still lurking...

EDR got

Quality post Dak, If I had more time i would have read all of it. EDR was dead and burried after the 1st bit anyway

ClonedAncient - I agree. It is an old thread...and I figured it would be dead. But I was hoping EDR was still around.

Uriel and Ewok^ - Thanks.

I did PM EDR... Let's see if he will come out of hiding, no?

Good job dak...you made all of us reminisce on the old days...those were the days.

But I can't believe XSternMinautor is still lurking! Why won't you come out of the shadow once in a while?