Originally posted by Fivex
View Post
Don't tell each other what to do.
-
Don't tell us what to do
Don't tell each other what to do. -
Can I tell you what to do?Originally posted by Norbs View PostStop the cyberhate
from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a 
Susan Black
Comment
-
No, stick to RafaComment
-
Originally posted by Daniel 7 View PostArnish
Strictly speaking, it's more a dialect than a language.
I like his logical system. By boldly if implicitly asserting that the notion of the opening premise is nothing but unnecessary baggage, he has at a stroke shown up the absurdity of the related yet distinct, and now redundant, concepts of deduction, induction and abduction.
Instead his system is entirely predictive and relies on formulating two desired conclusions and then linking them by means of what we may call the "Speculative Negative" which has nothing to do with either of those outcomes but floats between with no visible means of support, evidence or comprehensibility.
In its own way, it's a work of genius, as it goes beyond the semantics of informal logic to bear ample comparison with anything in the formalism of Euclid, Spinoza, Gödel, Hilbert and Russell.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I don't want to have to tell you again.Originally posted by Norbs View Post.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Don't tell me what to do.Originally posted by Fivex View Post
Don't tell each other what to do.
Tell Norbs though. He needs telling..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
**** himComment
-
-
UmmmmOriginally posted by Neil Young View Post
Strictly speaking, it's more a dialect than a language.
I like his logical system. By boldly if implicitly asserting that the notion of the opening premise is nothing but unnecessary baggage, he has at a stroke shown up the absurdity of the related yet distinct, and now redundant, concepts of deduction, induction and abduction.
Instead his system is entirely predictive and relies on formulating two desired conclusions and then linking them by means of what we may call the "Speculative Negative" which has nothing to do with either of those outcomes but floats between with no visible means of support, evidence or comprehensibility.
In its own way, it's a work of genius, as it goes beyond the semantics of informal logic to bear ample comparison with anything in the formalism of Euclid, Spinoza, Gödel, Hilbert and Russell.
Neilism
Comment
-
I am nicking thatI do not think it will happen and I do not want it to happen but it must happen and it will happen and I want it to.Comment
-
I never thought I'd see the moment when the above in bold googled together leads you directly to EST1892Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
Strictly speaking, it's more a dialect than a language.
I like his logical system. By boldly if implicitly asserting that the notion of the opening premise is nothing but unnecessary baggage, he has at a stroke shown up the absurdity of the related yet distinct, and now redundant, concepts of deduction, induction and abduction.
Instead his system is entirely predictive and relies on formulating two desired conclusions and then linking them by means of what we may call the "Speculative Negative" which has nothing to do with either of those outcomes but floats between with no visible means of support, evidence or comprehensibility.
In its own way, it's a work of genius, as it goes beyond the semantics of informal logic to bear ample comparison with anything in the formalism of Euclid, Spinoza, Gödel, Hilbert and Russell.
as number 1....
Comment
-
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
The abduction law:rick:
Are we winning?Comment
-
Will someone abduct this cat?
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
This made me laugh out loud honestly.Originally posted by Daniel 7 View PostUmmmm
Neilism
Those that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law.
Those that killed her, were following the law.Comment
Comment