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.

Trackbacks

1. Dave Lucas:::Through the Sunday papers, quickly...
2. Ztower
3. PianoFan

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #827926
   On October 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   I think Roland grasps what you have done in this thread.

   You seem to try to break down an argument to it’s barest component parts to make a pure logic (in a nearly mathematical sense) argument.

   I have a feeling that if a person were to assert the 2 + 2 = 4 you would call them wrong and stupid and then go on to say they hadn’t established that they were using real numbers under ordinary addition (that is, as opposed to some undefined set of elements under an undefined operation represented by ‘+’).

   Why do you do this?

2. #827939
   On October 21st, 2009 at 11:19 am, corkie said:

   they hadn’t established that they were using real numbers

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

   Why are you being silly?

   And Roland didn’t grasp it.

3. #827943
   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 ‘+’.

4. #827982
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm, corkie said:

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

   Again, stop being silly.

5. #827988
   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.

6. #827991
   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.

7. #827994
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm, zeroangel said:

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

8. #827998
   On October 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm, corkie said:

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

9. #828023
   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?

10. #828033
    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.

11. #828054
    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.

12. #828064
    On October 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm, Kingfish said:

    zero:

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

13. #828068
    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!