breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 864

jmfbahciv

More contradiction in your logic:

You post to defend "consensus", you claim...but then form a minority of ONE...alone...

The madman, wrapped from head to toe in metal foil, looks out of the window at the people walking by: "Are the rest of you all mad?!? You don't wear metal foil to protect you from the alien flying saucer's 'brain melting rays', as the invisible Chesire cat told me to do!!"...the madman sits down and thinks: "*sigh* I am the only sane person left in a world gone mad"...

Again, as always, the burden of proof is on the prosection...

You must provide EVIDENCE for your case...you will NOT "rumour monger" your way into the "consensus"...you will NOT bully your way into the "consensus"...you will NOT use "fear" as a means of control to hijack the "consensus"...

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE...put up or shut up...

Descartes is the father of the modern scientific mindset...Aristotle his ancient counterpart...

You accuse science itself of an inability to "think analytically"?!?

of

I made no such buttertion...you are clearly delibrately twisting things...

I stated:

1. The evidence-based philosophy of science should prevail...

2. The evidence-based philosophy of science does not conflict with the POSSIBILITY of unorthodox "out of the box" thinking...

This is generic statement of general principle...

You are personalising this in order to twist it around into an "ad hominem" attack...this is a means of evasion from the question - will I shall not cease in asking - of providing EVIDENCE for your buttertions...

The burden of PROOF rests with the prosection (a.k.a. you)...

A linguistical shorthand, as well you know...

Einstein's "relativity" does implicitly say that Newton is partially incorrect, though not wholly so...the "error" was one of ommission...

But let's "ask" Einstein himself, so to speak, as he did leave his opinion of Newton in some of his essays:

"Newton himself was better aware of the weakness inherent in his intellectual edifice than the generations which followed him. This fact has always roused my admiration" Albert Einstein, "Essays in Science", 1934

You deny the requirement of "proof" to validate a "hypothesis"...

I'm an buttembly language programmer...our main "currency" is "Boolean logic"...

I'm NOT going to be taking any "lessons" about "science and logic" from you...

a

Again, you argue the complete opposite to what is actually stated...I exactly talk of denying "authority-based" reasoning - because YOU say so, it "must" be true, as you claim "authority" - in preference for "evidence-based" reasoning...

You are stating the exact opposite of what I'm actually saying with just too much frequency...

That is a standard "troll" tactic to incite and reaction...willfull misinterpretation of the opposite of what's stated, as your repeated failure to comprehend frustrates, thus inciting increasingly pbuttionate response...satisfying the objectives of a "troll" to not seek any resolution, merely to persist in the continuation of an argument for its own sake...

Once or twice, it's coincidence...but such repeated willfull misinterpretation? The suspicion mounts that you are nothing but a "troll"...but, of course, as always, the hypothesis must be verified by evidence to reach conclusion...you gain "the benefit of the doubt" thus far - it is merely a suspicion, not fact - but further repebreastion of this methodology would eventually consbreastute statistical proof, when the "balance of probabilities" exceeds the "critical value" at which an unnatural cause for your replies becomes more probable than natural coincidence...

No, sorry...you violate the very definition of the word in this buttertion...

This is wholly unreasonable and illogical...thus, we cannot continue this discussion sensibly until we can "compromise" on definitions and a means to proceed...

I fail to recognise your unscientific "no evidence required" analytical methodology...without clarification of its system of functioning, sensible response that addresses your complaints in terms that you find acceptable becomes impossible...

Incorrect; It was derived from the evidence, irrespective of the people...a hundred people could report their identical perspective (e.g. "It is a square"), the conclusion would not have been swayed or tainted by that number...equally, instead of three people, one person makes those three stated observations...the same conclusion could be reached by a lone individual, without consensus (though, the statement that a person cannot possess "objectivity" remains: At any one instance, they may only possess a single subjective view of the object - you cannot see all sides and all angles of cuboid shape simultaneously - but have derived an objective view of it by the consolidation of multiple subjective viewpoints...it matters not whether one person does this alone, or many people are involved: The process remains the same...and, hence, "popularity" of a particular subjective view makes no impact on the conclusion whatsoever)...

You are repeatedly demonstrating you have not even the most basic understanding of the principles you are talking about...

look

Again, your buttertions are false...

From the Oxford English Concise Dictionary:

----------------------------------

su'bject(2) (-i-, -e-) n. 3. (Philos.) thinking or feeling enbreasty, the mind, the ego, the conscious self, as opp. all that is external to the mind;

subje'ctive a. & n. 1. a. (Philos.) belonging to, of, due to, the consciousness or thinking or perceiving subject or ego as opp. real or external things;

obj'ect(1) n. 5. (Philos.) thing thought of or apprehended as correlative to the thinking mind or subject, external thing, the non-ego;

obje'ctive a. & n. 1. (Philos.) belonging not to the consciousness or the perceiving or thinking SUBJECT(2), but to what is presented to this, external to the mind, real;

obser've (-z-) v. 2. perceive, mark, watch, take notice of, become conscious of, (person, thing, that, how);

perce'ption n. (Philos.) action by which the mind refers its sensations to external object as cause;

----------------------------------

By these definitions, my buttertions are confirmed...a person - their consciousness - cannot be in possession of "objectivity" (the non-ego) by definition of the very word itself...further, we can also see (this is why I included the definitions of "observe" and "perceive" also) that a perception or observation that a person ("ego") possesses (e.g. "is a square") belongs to the consciousness of the perceiving thing, not to the objectivity reality of the external object in question (in other words, "square" is a word...a human abstraction...we use it to think and communicate on attributes we perceive in the objective world but it is NOT itself an actual reality of that said world)...

I often like to sum this all up in a simple everyday phrase (which the ALA group might recognise me having said a few times before): "Don't confuse the notation with the notated"...

NOW, obviously, the Oxford English Dictionary is generally regarded by consensus in Britain to be the foremost "standard" of the exacting definition of words in the English language...

In no way - by making reference to these definitions - do I detract from the possibility that you may operate by different definitions of these words (such as the loose, informal and highly colloquial usage of "objective" and "subjective" to be "reality" and "opinion", respectively, in a non-exacting and informal fashion)...

My sole intention here is to provide you with the definitions of these words as I AM USING THEM...and to demonstrate that I use them correctly with regard to a well-respected and established "standard" of the English language...

You may operate by different definitions and standards - of which I detract nothing from, as an equally valid alternative - BUT, of course, in order for us to have a clear and unambiguous conversation, communication requires a "compromise" of definition...we have to be "speaking the same language" in order to be understood exactly in our intended positions...

In the interests of this resolution of the matter, I therefore offer you, as I say, the above definitions by which I have been operating in my statements...which, in this case, are a "standard" based on an "authority" which does operate by "consensus"...BUT this is not an "appeal" to that "authority" nor to "consensus" - that to say, I do not claim the Oxford dictionary is in any way "superior" to any other English language dictionary - simply a clarification of the definitions and standards by which MY post was operating...I fully respect that you may differently define these words but, for the purposes of communication, the definitions you operate by should at least be explained, so that what you specifically mean is understood...to insbreastute a "like for like" comparison, as an "unlike" comparison would essentially be meaningless to directly compare...

Also, at this point, you can now directly appreciate at least the beginnings of what I mean by attempting to prove one's case by the use of independently verifiable evidence...I made an buttertion, I correctly must attempt to demonstrate that case by evidence...

Again - and there's no wriggling out of it by evasion and digression - the burden of PROOF rests with the prosecution...you made an accusation...PROVE that buttertion...if you cannot outrightly prove, then at least demonstrate a case where the statistical "balance of probabilities" favours your buttertion (this would not be "fact" - it is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" - but would at least begin a process of confirmation of your buttertions)...

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE...put up or shut up...

Then please provide your formal definition of the terms "object", "objective", "subject", "subjective", "observe" and "perception", as I have done above, so that we may begin to attempt to resolve this matter by trying to "synchronise" our language to the terms as used by the other party...

I fully respect that you may have a differing definition of these terms...I do not ask you to "conform" to my definitions...or claim they have any more or less "authority" than yours...

Merely a matter of basic "practicalities"...in order to properly understand each other, we must "synchronise" our language by some means...such is, of course, the very nature of communication...

I never said it was...I have repeatedly stated that it is solely based on EVIDENCE (such as that you have yet to provide for your buttertions)...your inability to realise this does not bode well for your apparent comprehension of the points I'm trying to make...

Statistics, by the way, does operate in the manner prescribed...I have formal, established educational qualifications in the subject and have used it correctly in the formulation of a mathematically based safety critical system, which requires strict and exacting formal use of mathematics to save people's lives...

In short and informally: You picked the entirely WRONG PERSON to attempt to "bully", sunshine...you might have bought one of those "audio courses" about "how to win arguments" by fraudulent and deceptive means...or some "Argumentation 101" course...I am aware of such things and completely recognise the "methodology" when I see it...

Nevertheless, the employment of fraudulent and deceptive means of argumentation does not make a lie a truth or a truth a lie...wrong remains wrong, no matter how well "presented" or "made pretty" it is...so, fundamentally, there is no point continuing this course of action because, whatever "tactics" you use, I can "pound it into submission" with factual evidence that may be independently verified...repeatedly...ceaselessly...

You have identified yourself elsewhere, as a defender of fascist sentiment...as such, I would draw your attention to my admiration of our former Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his resolution to "never, never, never surrender" in the face of your fascist sympathising kind...

In the words of that Nobel Prize for Literature winning writer:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

Extract of the "we shall fight them on the beaches" radio speech given by Winston Churchill

We shall not flag or fail...in an informal context: "Bring it on!" :)

Then you do not speak of any Descartesean "science" to which I have understanding and recognition of...

pull NOT

Thank you; But I cannot factually state the same kindness in return...

You, on the other hand, ARE quite wrong...

I voiced...a

Rule by majority is the basis of democracy...

I would, indeed, echo Churchill's sentiment that democracy is far from perfect...but, as he noted, from the pool of infinitely WORSE methods of governance, democracy is the "least worst" amongst them...

Again, your statement is logically flawed...autocracy - the rule of ONE over all - is the ultimate form of "dictatorship"...aristocracy - the rule of a few "privileged elite" over the rest - is a lesser form of "dictatorship" but a dictatorship nonetheless...democracy - rule of the majority view - is the least form of "dictatorial" governence...bicameral democracy - as exists in America and Britain, for instance - furthers "refines" the democratic model in the requirement of further "concensus" of multiple, independence bodies (UK: Lords and Commons, US: Senate and Representatives)...law is also made politically independent...this mechanism (often referred to as "checks and balances") exists to make dictatorial and autocratic rule impossible: No one person alone holds all the cards and all the power...

This principle, as I noted elsewhere, was a remarkable attribute of the first President of the United States, George Washington, in his willing surrender of the position of "Commander-in-chief" to take the role of President...also, his willing surrender of the Presidency itself after two terms of office...further, the Consbreastutional basis of a "bicameral" model of democracy, inspired by the British "Magna Carta" (which introduced "secularism" by enshrining the principle of "religious tolerance" - which includes that of aethism and agnostism indirectly - IN LAW, so that the "essential freedoms" required for democratic rule to flourish were guaranteed)...the Republic of Virginia, in agreeing to the insbreastution of the original "United States", insisted that "rights" of the citizen should be enshrined in the Consbreastution as a condition of membership (there was should a set of "rights" already in the Virginian Republic's Consbreastution)...

The fundamental trend of this progression to democracy is that of the progressive "decentralisation" and "independence" of governance...the OPPOSITE of what you contends "lead to dictatorship"...as this progression insists on the division of power and governence, so that no one person nor no "elite few" are physically able to hold all the reigns of power simultaneously...

In my opinion, this is not only right...but that the process should NOT be considered over...we have made a good start, the process should be taken further...the "checks and balances" should be increased...the division of power further making autocratic rule impossible...more decentralisation...more independence of governing bodies...

"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." President Woodrow Wilson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." President Thomas Jefferson

"No man is ever good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." President Abraham Lincoln

on attempt

On the contrary, I can easily distinguish YOUR nonsense from the facts of the reality of the situation...despite your every effort to "cloud" and "muddy" the waters of understanding by willfull obfuscation...

Untrue; This is the purpose of "the rule of law", which must always accompany any civilised democratic nation...the law independently governs - in as fair and unbiased way - on those Liberties, which, if enacted, would be injurious or prejudicial to the Liberty of another...

"Equality for all" is NOT this supposed "chaos" that those of your Straussian disposition claim it to be...for the insbreastution of "the rule of law" maintains the order and cohesion of society, while, as is inscribed on the US Supreme Court building, the principle of "Equal Justice Under Law" is exercised...

You defend concentration camps - ruled "unconsbreastutional" by the US Supreme Court (the same people who ruled in Bush's favour to make him President in 2000, so "bias" or "Democrat influence" is hardly a charge that will stick) - where these fundamental principles of "the rule of law" are NOT applied...simply, if they are "persons", as claimed, then bring them to the same standards of criminal law - based on EVIDENCE - that applies in all other instances...there should be NOTHING to be feared in such "due process", if there is no grounds by which to believe their detentions are unsound...

In short: If they are "persons", bring the EVIDENCE of this to a court of law and it will have no choice but to concur with that "person" designation, as the EVIDENCE clearly proves that case...

If the current system of law is not adequate to deal with the "new person threat" then refine what is acceptable evidence to present in cases of "terrorism" (e.g. in the UK, "phone tap" evidence is not deemed acceptable for criminal prosecutions...hence, simply refine the law to introduce the ability to use such evidence in cases of "suspected terrorism")...DO NOT "by-pbutt" the "the rule of law" entirely and set up a dictatorial system that's open to abuse and persecution (e.g. violating a foundational principle that the law is independent of political control, to place powers of "detention without trial" in the hands of a POLITICIAN)...

It should be noted that such powers of "detention without trial" were granted to the Gestapo, just before Hitler took power...and ABUSED this power granted to them, turning the Gestapo into the feared "above the law do-watever-the-hell-we-like without any reigns on our power" evil force that is now legendary in its savageness...that is historical fact, lest we forget...and the consequences of such unchecked power in the extermination of millions of people, on similar bogus "pseudo-scientific" nonsense as you spout here, was the greatest, most evil failure of humanity in all of history...

Specifically:

"Not when it's to promote Hitler and his thugs' goals"

Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party..."his thugs" were Nazis...the "goals" of the Nazi party were fascist...

You think by not specifically using the word "Nazi" or "fascist", you can "disguise" what you have accused...but there is no other valid interpretation: "Hitler and his thugs" were the Nazis...their goals were, by extension, Nazi goals...their ideology was fascist...

Also, specifically:

"Your intentions were to promote an evil which, unfortunately, was not eradicated with the end of WWII."

Again, you attempt to "slur" by not directly stating in words what you accuse...but, again, those is no other valid interpretation...the "evil" of which you speak is that of Naziism and fascism, as this was the "evil" that the war attempted to eradicate...

This tactic of referring indirectly to Nazi-ism and fascism in your accusations, as I means to avoid a direct citation which demonstrates this is a futile mechanism in this case because, simply, you are not send enough in language to do what you intend to do...plant "undetectable" vicious rumours...

They are very much detectable in your statements...there are no other valid interpretations to what you have said...

You probably read about the use of this "tactic" of "indirect reference"...but reading "theory" does not mean you are send in its practice...for your tactic here to function, there must be an "ambiguity" inherent in your phrasiology by which to "hide" your intent...there is no such thing because you do not possess the linguistical skills that you believe you do to pull off such a "stunt"...and, basically, you look rather stupid even trying such a failed and futile pathetic attempt at what is, indeed, an impressive skill of linguistical manipulation...

You forgot to introduce the required "ambiguity"...it matters not that you did not use the exact words "Nazi" or "fascism"...there is NO OTHER VALID INTERPRETATION of your statement: "Not when it's to promote Hitler and his thugs' goals"...Hitler is an unambiguous historical person, "his thugs" were factual the Nazi party, their goals are well-known and documented...they were fascists...there is no other valid interpretation of what you meant by this statement...

You mis-overestimate your talents...you've been caught red-handed because, simply, you are too incompetent to get away with your CRIMES (as effectively, this is a libelous statement you've made, which is a clear attempt at "defamation of character"...just to be completely clear that you are in violation of the law, as you do so...I have no intention of using that law and a court would consider such a case too trivial to waste its time with...but this does not excuse you from behaviour in accordance with the rule of law)...

A charge to which you've supplied no evidence and haven't substaniated in the slightest...

Further, it is illogical...as you have claimed that my intent is, somehow, "impossible to see" in what I've written...as has been asked, how you therefore claim with complete confidence to see that which does not exist is a paradoxical and illogical buttertion...if this "example" shows "my intent", as you now claim (though, semantically, the sentence can be easily shown NOT to convey any such "intent" at all), then it isn't "impossible to see", as you have also claimed...

Your claims are paradoxical and contradictory...you are clearly lying (if you consider that "libel", then, by all means, I happily submit to being accountable to the consequences of my actions...to prove libel, you must PROVE - with EVIDENCE - that the statement made was false...you have demonstrated that you cannot do so and, hence, calling you a liar is not libellous, if it is a completely true and factual statement...again, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution...PROVE otherwise and I will gladly retract the buttertion forthwith)...

That is not my intent whatsoever...I have generally attempted to use logical and rational argumentation - based on logical and scientific principles - to discuss this matter with you...the "emotional" charge is, I think, probably attempting to invoke a gender stereotype...

Again, you are guilty of the exact "crimes" you accuse others of...but "hide it in plain sight" it in a slightly post-modern way by actually enacting the very things you claim "wrong" as you talk about them...it most certainly is a bold and cheeky strategy, which, I'm sure, actually succeeds for you most of the time...when someone is, indeed, so bold and outright, it beggers belief that anyone could be so comtemptuously cheeky...so people don't believe it...and, hence, it is effectively "hidden in plain sight"...it is the oldest tactic of the confidence trickster: The more bold, the more brash, the more fearless, the more outrageous the "scam", then, ironically, the better chance of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes...as it is simply incredulous that someone would actually plan what appears to be outright insanity...to actually NAME how their "scam" works - tell you how they are doing it - while they trick and cheat you...absurd! And, ironically, it's that absurdity - it couldn't possibly be true - that makes people "drop their guard" in disbelief...and - BANG! - the confidence trickster "makes the kill"...

No, you grossly patronise your fellow human beings...as if you see them as "pawns" or "objects" in your little "battle"...I butture you that people do NOT "accept" whatever I say, simply because they have agreed with something I have said earlier...not least because, if they do blindly agree with me, I regularly REFUSE to allow them to do that...for example, I wrote a long post criticising Windows...a Linux user posted "Yay! Well done!"...so, my very next post was an equally long post make criticism of Linux...

This is based on a principle that Abraham Lincoln best captured:

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." President Abraham Lincoln

Also:

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." President Thomas Jefferson

If I feel someone is agreeing with me but is doing so blindly, then I care not for whether they agree or disagree with me, the "blindness" is WRONG...and I will challenge it...I will use some "wild words" as an buttault of thought on the unthinking...

Indeed, in the story that gives us the phrase "In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King"...the one eyed man eventually asks for his eye to be plucked out...surrenders his "kingship" (as Washington surrendered both Commander-in-Chief and Presidential office voluntarily for the sake of democracy, irrespective of his own personal gain or loss: The nation mattered more)...

You are either a liar...or an idiot...

Please specifically demonstrate where anything I've advocated matches the historical agenda of the fascist Nazi party...

Do not fudge...or hedge...or evade...or digress...

If I were the Nazi you wish to claim, then your failure to strongly oppose it and clearly expose this supposed "agenda" would be tantamount to being complicit in the action yourself...for "evil" to suceed, simply requires "good" to stand around and do nothing...if I were who you say I were, then your failure to categorically demonstrate this with EVIDENCE...to present a clear case for what you claim...then that inaction on your part would be tantamount to "conspiracy" and "collusion"...if you know a liquidate is going to be committed and do nothing to prevent that, you have "conspired" with that liquidateer...

So, though I am not who you claim me to be...and do not promote the agenda you accuse me of promoting...regardless: Do NOT fudge...or hedge...or evade...or digress...or tire...or grow idle...fight, damn you, fight! Present your case...provide the evidence...run me out of town with my tail between my legs...

ender not

And, pray tell, what IS that word?

Again with this continual "vagueness": "you are a person who does a thing that has a word which supports certain people who I won't actually name"...

If you don't say it explicitly, then I cannot complaint about it? Is this your strategy with this continual "vagueness"...or, possibly, it's also to "suggest", "hint", "create rumour" of things which are not even there, by indirectly dropping "subliminal suggestions" that do not, in fact, refer to anything in particular...

Ah, this is like in those horror movies, where they don't actually directly show you the "evil monster"...but just "looking from the monster's eyes" or shadows moving in the background...because a person's imagination can always conjure a worse "evil" in their minds than any "special effects" could ever match...

Also, "articles"?!? You call my rants "articles"?!? You think they have the slightest "plan" to them? Sorry, complete stream-of-consciousness rants...first drafts, even...but, I get it: Again with the "subliminal suggestion"...if it's an "article" then it's "formal"...if it's "formal" then it's "planned"...if it's "planned" then I am cunningly "hiding evil" in the text...and that also makes it all the more "evil" because it is a pre-meditated act...

You are both sad and cowardly...a snivelling dishonourable fraudster...cheating others because you are a failure at standing, honestly, with dignity, on your own two feet...you cannot actively win because you are a failure as a person, so employ the tactic of destroying and bringing down others instead...a "relativistic" way to get ahead...

If your freedom were truly at serious risk, where I was in a suitable position myself to do something about it and it would do any good, then I would give my life for your freedom...

I have long, long since being saying "no"...to me, voicing "no" goes without saying...removal of your Liberty and you make out it is a "big thing" to say "no"? Something bold and "proud", simply to name an injustice and say "oh, bother and tarnation...I don't quite agree with this troublesome thing here" when it happens?

Oh, give me strength! Let me guess, someone breaks into your home, steals all your possessions and your response to meeting them is simply: "I would like to tell you that I do not agree with what you've just done...no!"...then that's it?!?

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves." Dresden James

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis

"Getting real time help"?!?

What new absurdity are you talking about now?

My use of language is too "consistent"?

Strange, I just came to this thread from one where the complete opposite was charged...that I had "humpty-dumpty language" and didn't know my "pronouns" properly and so forth...

The complete LACK of consistency I have from critics when they disagree with me strikes me as the more interesting "consistency" (or lack thereof) to note:

I'm so highly send with language, I can hide "impossible to see" subliminal phrases in what I write...yet, at the same time, I'm such a blithering idiot with language, I don't know basic elementary points of grammar...yet, at the same time, I formulate my "articles" with infinite precision (and "real time help", whatever the frack that means ;)...yet, at the same time, I'm a rambling long-winded mad cow who rants and raves...

Yet, at the same time, I'm "this" while simultaneously being "that", which is completely mutually exclusive with the first...yeah, this all makes perfect logical sense...NOT!

You stole the words right out of my mouth that I was thinking about you...

Beth :)