The Earth Shall Not Be Moved
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 07:06:35 -0400 (00893693195, 19980427105539.AAA8138@briandea)
>DICK
>No, again you demonstrate that you cannot read or understand
>what others have read to you. I said it appears that nothing
>moves. And nothing does move.
>BRIDEAN
>Well, is there, or is there not a difference between appearances
>and reality?
DICK
You know, Kant spent his whole life trying to answer that
question, and his books where he wrote his answers are none
too clear. But certainly, there is a difference between
appearances and reality or we wouldn't have two *different*
words.
BRIDEAN
So why does "And nothing does move" necessarily follow from "I said it
appears that nothing moves"? Is this another example of nothing
necessarily following from another nothing?
>DICK
>This is a boast. I too stated only facts but Atheist High
>Priest Tilly pronounced them the sins of boasts. Of course,
>Tilly, as an alleged English teacher, seems never to know
>the customary meanings of words:
>BRIDEAN
>So now you are agreeing with Till on the meaning of words?
DICK
No, I'm merely pointing out that Tilly is a fool. It's
his law that you're sinning, not mine. I'm merely pointing
out to his one musketeer, whom we call the Unknown
Musketeer, that Tilly is illogical.
But Tilly and I do agree on the meaning of 99% of words
in the English language probably. That's why we can say
we speak the same language.
>>>BRIDEAN
>>>I both did, and didn't abandon it for something that pays real
>>>money.
>>DICK
>>Not surprising, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
>>BRIDEAN
>>Well, if you are as smart as you say you are, you would be able to verify
>>where I am currently employed at. I will give you a hint, it is not
>McDonalds.
>DICK
>And you cannot read simple English, can you? I said I
>seriously doubted that it was true that you accomplished
>the contradiction of "both did and didn't", but then you
>probably never saw your contradiction, not knowing anything
>of logic or reason.
>BRIDEAN
>It is not a contradiction because I meant "did" and "didn't" in two
>different respects. But then you never saw that did you? Is this
>another projection on your part?
DICK
Then you just confessed to committing the fallacy of
equivocation, proving you're illogical.
"equivocation: using two or more meanings of a key word in
the same argument"
BRIDEAN
And which particular word did I use two or more different meanings of?
>DICK
>And certainly I could have a copy of
>your credit report in minutes, but why ever would I bother?
>I've already read the credit reports of two of the fools
>on this list who are mighty slim pickings.
>BRIDEAN
>My credit report doesn't really contain much information about me
>other than that I procrastinate on bills.
DICK
Well, mine indicates that I ignore and forget to pay
some timely, so we have something in common finally.
I'm gradually moving all mine to the bank to be paid
automatically.
BRIDEAN
I thought you said that only fools put their money in banks.
>BRIDEAN
>Very well. Consider the path going north one unit, then west one unit. This
>is a path that has length two. Now consider the path going norh a half a
>unit, west a half a unit, north a half a unit, then west a half a unit. This
>path also has length two. Now apply this over and over again reducing the
>amount you go north and west by 1/2 and you will see that this path gets
>closer and closer to a straight line. Yet this path ALWAYS has length two.
DICK
Hmm. Being in words, I must convert this to a mental image.
This seems to be the old crumpled paper trick. If you
straighten out the line, it has length two but crumpled,
it's shorter. Seems to be the sawtooth fallacy, one you
don't see very often, especially not on a Bible study list
like this one. Consider these cubits and the slippery slope,
a fallacy I haven't seen on this list yet.
BRIDEAN
Sort of like the slipery slope of "Humane Vitae"?
>BRIDEAN
>I am claiming that I have access to how satellites work and how information
>is passed between them. I don't find it surprising at all that one of your
>friends was Richard Nixon. I shook his hand when I was a kid, but of course
>that doesn't mean anything.
Well, friends is stretching it a bit. I never called him
anything but Mr. President. I was a temporary advisor on
his first Transition Team setting up his administration.
I was active in Mensa then and recommended smart people
for certain appointments. Not all of my recommendations
were accepted by any means. It was actually a pretty
nutty idea. I knew George Wallace best out of this group,
working on his Rocky Mountain campaign in 1968.
>On the rare occasions when I do fly, it's first class on
>a major airline and not with a bunch of corporate dummies
>who can't afford their own company planes.
>BRIDEAN
>It is not so much that they can't afford their own company planes, but
>they choose to save money by using Executive Jet instead.
DICK
Then they might as well save even more and fly commercial.
BRIDEAN
Point taken.
>BRIDEAN
>I am thinking in the back of my head, comparing
>1) I am right in saying that Jesus was not God.
>with
>2) The Catholic WAS and IS the ONLY form
>of true Christianity, and the ONLY basic Christianity.
>Thinking especially about the word TRUE in statement 2.
>Since I don't know the difference between concepts, words,
>meanings, and all the other areas of semantics please
>explain this to me.
DICK
OK. Jesus wasn't/isn't God. Fairly clear I think. But
let's word this statement 2 in a different way. [*IF*
there is anything at all to the foolishness of
Christianity, *THEN*] the Catholic Church WAS and IS the
ONLY form of true Christianity, and the ONLY basic
Christianity. Note that the original actually says this.
You ignored the context of the words reading more into
than what is there.
BRIDEAN
Oh well, with Christ and the heavenly hosts defending it, how could
it ever die? Perhaps you should try to get them on your side so that
you won't need your *partially armored* car. Save you a lot of money
that way.
>>DICK
>>If you were a 16 year-old female this might be possible
>>but since it's only Tilly's challenge of a 5 year-old
>>fool, not interested. Sources are the FALLACY OF APPEAL
>>TO AUTHORITY. What is this odd game played on this list
>>demanding tit for tat?
>>BRIDEAN
>>What difference does it make whether or not I am a 16 year old female?
>>Oh, I forgot, you like little girls don't you? And where do you get 5 year
>>old from. Is there some fascination you have with 5 year olds as well?
>DICK
>No, I don't like little girls, yet another lie and/or false
>conclusion on your part.
>BRIDEAN
>Where was there any conclusion there? Oh I forgot, I don't know anything
>about the difference between concepts, words, meanings, and all
>the other areas of semantics. Perhaps then you can explain to me
>where I mentioned any "conclusions" about you and 5 year olds.
DICK
Your lie and/or false conclusion was not about me and 5 year
olds but was the word "little". You cannot logically conclude
the word "little" from age 16, since I'm sure there are some
16 year olds bigger than you. If you would read what I said,
I specifically said the liking little girls was the false
conclusion. You really do have problems with semantics.
BRIDEAN
Little is a relative term. Compared to people who are bigger than me I am
little. Therefore I stand by my statement.
>DICK
>I like girls about six feet tall and not skinny. I like girls with fully
>developed breasts. But I do like young women who have some
>interest in learning more about sex. Your cheap ad hominem
>after I correctly identified you as offering the argument of a 5
>year-old fool is where I got the 5 year-old from. I do have a fascination
>with those who claim to be adults, such as you, but who have
>and/or use only the mental powers of five year-olds.
>BRIDEAN
>Well since I know nothing of the difference between concepts, words,
>meanings, and all the other areas of semantics, perhaps you can tell
>me where I ever claimed to be an adult?
DICK
Well, unlike Tilly who worships the Archives of this mess,
recording his divine words and all, I delete this junk as
soon as I read and/or answer it. Thus, having destroyed all
the evidence intentionally, I cannot present it. But evidence
is not needed forever to know something. I can buy a Pepsi,
drink it and after it's all gone still know that it was a
Pepsi. Perhaps where we are here is that I know your claims
but you don't.
BRIDEAN
I never claimed to be an adult. But I am older than 5 years.
>DICK
>You are most fascinating with your curious blend of odd facts and no
>reasons beyond those of a silly five year-old.
>BRIDEAN
>Since you find the reasonings of a five year old fascinating, perhaps
>it would be more fruitful for you to hang around your local kindergarden
>school. Perhaps the saying, "Everything I need to know I learned in
>kindergarden" applys to you.
DICK
But I *am* hanging around a kindergarten, this one right here.
Not learning much yet though, except that Tilly's a fool.
BRIDEAN
How does "this one right here" fit the definition of "kindergarten"?