|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?
"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message ups.com... 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? Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is never defined in a manner which most people use it. PS Mike, that is a generalization, E=mc2 is not a generalization. Bank robbers drive cars, therefore all car drivers are bank robbers is an invalid "generalization" that you frequently make relative to mountain bike riders, but never make relative to other kinds of visitors to public lands. Another generalization that does not hold true is, all PhDs are idiots. 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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?
On May 22, 6:57 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 20 May 2007 21:36:35 -0700, Bruce Jensen wrote: Which makes it generally true. An expert in the English language, you are NOT. You are using the wrong meaning of "general". Snicker - You don't like the meaning *I* choose, eh? Well, tough - in your lame example YOU are using the wrong meaning for the original context, which was about bigotry, not about mathematical or logical relationships. 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). That's right - in order to win an argument, he trots out his "credentials" and resorts to additional character attacks. You sound like Michael Savage. Are you sure you're not a Repuglican? Anyway, big deal. All that education and you're still a fool. A perfect example of why *you* cannot be trusted. - 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. Listen, smart guy, I ripped through just as much physics and math as you did, and maybe more, in my college career. It makes no difference - if you don't have the sensibility to apply it to the real world (which you clearly do not), none of it will do you a bit of good. On top of that, you are a misanthropic, bitter jerk, and as a result you fall flat on your face every time...hence the psychology is ALSO lost on you. Psychology = science? Puhleeeze, give me a break. As you are so fond of pointing out, mere observations and statistics are not real science. (Note the prior sentence is baiting - let's see if he takes it). You are like an abused dog, that barks at anything that moves, for no reason. What a swell analogy - that logically falls apart, as usual, like everything else you say. You ARE an abused dog. All we can feel is pity for you. For all your baseless ranting about staying out of the woods, I hear the voices of John Muir, Bob Marshall, Ed Abbey, H.D. Thoreau and Ansel Adams far more loudly and eloquently. People are natural creatures, with natural connections to the land, the forest, the mountains, the waters and the animals. To avoid it is unnatural, and that is something that you in your ivory tower will never understand. Probably better that way - we don't need misguided misanthropes stalking decent people in the wilderness. I am done - feel free to rant and bluster until you're blue. Bruce Jensen |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... 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". An expert in the english language OR in science, clearly you are not. A generalization is generally true, e=mc2 is precisely true all of the time under all conditions. E never equals mc3 or mc, it equals only mc2. If one alters any one of energy, mass , or speed, then the remaining components will automatically change to make E=mc2, which makes E=mc2 a precision statement, not a generalization. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:59:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "Bruce Jensen" wrote in message oups.com... 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? Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is never defined in a manner which most people use it. On top of everything else, I also have to teach you ENGLISH? Just because you are too lazy to look in a dictionary? "a general statement, law, principle, or proposition". QED Idiot. PS Mike, that is a generalization, E=mc2 is not a generalization. Bank robbers drive cars, therefore all car drivers are bank robbers is an invalid "generalization" that you frequently make relative to mountain bike riders, but never make relative to other kinds of visitors to public lands. Another generalization that does not hold true is, all PhDs are idiots. 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. -- 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:59:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Bruce Jensen" wrote in message roups.com... 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? Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is never defined in a manner which most people use it. On top of everything else, I also have to teach you ENGLISH? Just because you are too lazy to look in a dictionary? "a general statement, law, principle, or proposition". QED Idiot. But Michael, your (that's YOUR) example is E=mc2. There is nothing, that's N-O-T-H-I-N-G, general about E=mc2. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar? | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 27 | May 24th 07 02:43 AM |
Fess up, LIAR! | crit PRO | Racing | 17 | March 2nd 06 12:21 PM |
Do Not buy from a proven Liar! | MOJO | Marketplace | 0 | January 12th 06 01:24 PM |
JD a Liar? | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 2 | November 17th 04 01:12 PM |
Flab ( Ed ) is a liar | Mo | Recumbent Biking | 24 | July 7th 03 12:32 PM |