What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?

On 16 May 2007 11:28:41 -0700, donquijote1954
wrote:

The difference is a lawyer has a license to lie. And they are
professionals at that. Ordinary liars are just amateurs.

How true!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 17, 2:05 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

" Huh? Some generalizations are VALID. DUH! "

Spoken like a true BIGOT

On May 17, 8:43 pm, ridewright wrote:
On May 17, 2:05 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

" Huh? Some generalizations are VALID. DUH! "

Spoken like a true BIGOT

"All generalities are false." q.v.

You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

PH

On 17 May 2007 17:43:54 -0700, ridewright
wrote:

On May 17, 2:05 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

" Huh? Some generalizations are VALID. DUH! "

Spoken like a true BIGOT

Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2

Now how does that make me a bigot?
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2

No, it isn't. It has a very specific meaning in its proper context.
Is your entire existence a sham?

Now how does that make me a bigot?

You are the king of non-sequiturs. Also, terrible analogies. Also,
sheer lack of logical thinking.

In other words, a certifiable nut.

On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2

No, it isn't.

It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
"generalization". DUH!

It has a very specific meaning in its proper context.
Is your entire existence a sham?

Now how does that make me a bigot?

You are the king of non-sequiturs. Also, terrible analogies. Also,
sheer lack of logical thinking.

In other words, a certifiable nut.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2

No, it isn't.

It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
"generalization". DUH!

My God, is there no end to it?

First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
discovered instance.

Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
shore up your ridiculous arguments?

Thank God you didn't go into physics or mathematics, which require
some level of discipline and precision - psychology, with all of its
hedging, rash generalizations and screwy malapropisms is the *perfect*
place for you. Please stay there.

On May 21, 12:36 am, Bruce Jensen wrote:

My God, is there no end to it?

First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
discovered instance.

Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
shore up your ridiculous arguments?

Bo, there IS no end to it; a simple Google will demonstrate the
unwavering consistency of Mikey's monomaniacle nuroses for 15 years at
the very least. You are attempting rational discourse with an
irrational being.

PH

On 20 May 2007 21:36:35 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2

No, it isn't.

It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
"generalization". DUH!

My God, is there no end to it?

First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
discovered instance.

Which makes it generally true. An expert in the English language, you
are NOT. You are using the wrong meaning of "general".

Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
shore up your ridiculous arguments?

Thank God you didn't go into physics or mathematics, which require
some level of discipline and precision

Another perfect example of why you can't be trusted: you don't even
know that I DID "go into physics or mathematics". BOTH. I got straight
A's in honors physics, and honors in mathematics at UC Berkeley and an
MA in math from Harvard. It would appear that when you don't know
something, you simply FABRICATE (=LIE).

- psychology, with all of its
hedging, rash generalizations and screwy malapropisms is the *perfect*
place for you. Please stay there.

Sounds like you know just as little about the science of psychology as
you do about physics, math, and the environment. You are like an
abused dog, that barks at anything that moves, for no reason.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 21 May 2007 03:36:02 -0700, pmh wrote:

On May 21, 12:36 am, Bruce Jensen wrote:

My God, is there no end to it?

First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
discovered instance.

Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
shore up your ridiculous arguments?

Bo, there IS no end to it; a simple Google will demonstrate the
unwavering consistency of Mikey's monomaniacle nuroses for 15 years at
the very least. You are attempting rational discourse with an
irrational being.

You are ASSUMING that he is rational, when in fact, he is nothing of
the sort. You are just like him -- like an abused dog that barks at
anything that moves, for no reason.

PH
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande