Re: Evidence for Big Bang Theory

Gil Hardwick (
Thu, 11 May 1995 04:40:13 GMT

In article <Admin.0x0x@oubliette.COM>, Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM) writes:
>Gil? Gil? Please, you are embarassing even me, now! Certainly if you meant
>this as a joke then you could have given us more of a hint that you were
>gaffing about the frailty of the language. For if you reread what you have
>just posted, then you will probably come to the conclusion that you've just
>really made big errors.

Ah, but I am up to your crud sophistry and headgames! If you keep this
up Eric I will insist that you get off too!

Look up, at the header. You have not even bothered to alter it to read
Set Theory (was Re: Evidence for Big Bang Theory), so I won't bother

I mean, just how transparent can you people get?

>Thre isn't any punctuation between the "no cats" and the "are dogs" parts
>of the sentence: "no cats are dogs." So, a simple Renn diagram would show
>us that the statement "no cats are dogs" makes absolute sense.

Here you merely shift context. At no time does the expression make
absolute sense at all, even were you to state beforehand that you
were invoking a system of absolute values in setting your parameters.

And as I repudiate your idea of "absolute" in any event, the NEW
statement you make here is _quite plainly_ that WITHIN the [new]
context of a Renn Diagramm [I wish now to invoke], the _statement_
"no cats are dogs" makes sense.

Further, Eric, your new statement ONLY makes SOME sense within that
EXTREMELY LIMITED context, and I would warn you ONCE AGAIN that you
take care in your deployment of the language.

The only thing here at all absolute, therefore, is your miserable
failure to repudiate my similar caveat on the statement as it was
originally made.

The thread of argument had been on the limits of (I will graciously
allow "known") space as defined by the Big Bang Theory, which then
led to further argument about the nature of nothing, for which some
lurker very mistakenly invoked the numerical symbol "zero".

Dr Roosen replied that the expression "no" in fact applied; the whole
then going right off on a tangent with people here paying far too much
serious attention to Carl Lydick's peculiarly benighted drivel. Shut
up there in his booth as he is, day after day.

Now both you and Bill Lawson seek to recover your ground by invoking
here an entirely different set of concepts and then attempting vainly
to insert my argument into there instead.

You are attempting to do nothing more than draw a little box around my
argument, and then asserting that because the box is called Set Theory
then my argument is invalid.

Had we been discussing Set Theory from the outset I would concur. But
we were NOT. We were discussing Big Bang Theory.

We still are. Look up, and read the Subject: line.

You people, like friend Gerold, simply don't know which box is which.

[pretty pictures deleted to save wear on the scroll bar]

>You are way off the planet on this one Gil! No cats are dogs does not
>mean that there are no cats universally, only that there are no cats within
>the context of being dogs. To be: I am, you are, etc. You know. A passive
>verb which goes a long way in modifying the noouns in the sentence

No Eric. All you have done here, I repeat, is shift context. Suddenly
out of the blue you have decided to start drawing these silly little
squares with words in them, and invoke them in as silly an effort to
discredit the caveat I had placed upon OTHER assertions made here.

Sorry, but my critique remains valid, however you chose to go about
invoking these entirely new entities. Shame on you!

>Although I cannot be sure of your current working environment, I assume
>that it involves graduate work. Are finals getting to you or something?
>Are you even on the same semesterly system? Do you even speak the same
>language where you are? :-) (Be nice! just tossing some fun your way.)

No, nothing is getting to me here at all, Eric. Clear as a bell.

So I shall accept your apology even on so pathetic an excuse you might
offer as maybe "the devil made me do it".