See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #401
   On October 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   It’s a real number in the absence of i or j. And + is certainly a defined operation.

   No. You could define (for example) a circular set under addition. Or just use any other set under an underfined binary operation represented by ‘+’.

2. #402
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm, corkie said:

   If it’s not defined then there is no operation.

   Again, stop being silly.

3. #403
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   That’s kind of the point and it’s what I am driving at. You break down an argument far beyond what is nessecary. I sometimes wonder if you are going to argue over what ‘is’ is.

4. #404
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm, corkie said:

   Yes, my point was logical and broke down the argument a bit. But nothing was transformational about it.

5. #405
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm, zeroangel said:

   Well, we can always start an arugment about what “a bit” means.

6. #406
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm, corkie said:

   Ha ha. Fair enough. It was a bit more than a bit.

7. #407
   On October 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm, Kingfish said:

   Zero: Come on now, how can I take you seriously when you did not correctthe claim of brontosaurus.

   Brontosaurus never existed. During the bone wars, a camarasaurus(sp) skull was fixed on the apatosurus.

   How’s that for a bit?

8. #408
   On October 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm, zeroangel said:

   Kingfish:

   Are you sure? I thought it was just a matter of name changes related to reclassifications in taxamony.

   In any case, whatever you call it, WE82 still likely thinks ancient man used it for construction equipment.

9. #409
   On October 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm, Kingfish said:

   Zero: Positive.

   As long as WE82 could slide down the tail at quittin’ time just like Fred.

10. #410
    On October 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm, Kingfish said:

    zero:

    http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm

11. #411
    On October 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm, zeroangel said:

    Kingfish:

    I skimmed it, it turns out we are both right to some degree:

    Marsh’s Brontosaurus would wind up getting both his name and his head changed, but it is essentially still the same animal. It it wrong to refer to an Apatosaurus as the Brontosaurus? Not really. The popular synonym has been around for many years and its meaning, “Thunder Lizard,” is highly descriptive to the sound the animal made.

    Still interesting though. I learned something new today. Thank you for that!