Schera Do

[i want to confine my discussion to "x + y" in the source thread of this riddle.] From this post in the "Use Your '2+2' Logic" thread: . . (I have yet to view the answer.) If you had specified that the poison is in liquid form, then I would have choosen the one that isn't empty as you haven't specified that the others contain anything.

Comprehension: The difference between Reading and Hearing Some may have noticed that I refuse to use the word "say" when referring to what is posted in the forum. Does anyone have a clue to the reason? In the asylum for the insane, who could "say?" A few examples with the word "say" or "saying" highlighted by me for convenience (Please note that I don't imply that only one user is responsible for a complete list of examples, which would overwhelm the forum.): . . . [Please note, tangentially, that an ad hominem would be that the poster's content is "low quality" due to the person's homely face; or that the person has foul body-odor within an argument designed to refute that person's assertions. This is more evidence the this particular person is illiterate with respect to the very named fallacies he wields as as blunt instrument. Not that I need further evidence. The question remains for the peanut gallery, Do want to be part of the solution or continue to perpetuate the problem?] . . . I can find such examples all day long, every day, for a month. I will now field objects to my proposition before I give the defense of my proposition. The reason I do this should be obvious to anyone paying any attention: If I do that in advance, then there is little to discuss and I don't allow for others to "shoot themselves in the foot", a.k.a. expose their inability to think critically. Good luck to everyone.

. What was your justification? YOU NEVER TOLD ME NOT TO PM YOU EVER. Do you dispute this? Second, what's the reason you posted this information in the forum? Please be informed that I copied "Dave" on the PM that your reported. Do you know the reason? FYI, I sent a link and copy of this post to Dave in a PM. Do you know the reason?

I can inform everyone that the reference to "Anderson Cooper" is made as he is the origin of the slander that became used repeatedly by enemies of the Right, but you mulitiplied the obscene slander in your false statement. Let everyone appreciate the obscentity and "offensive imagery" you peddled: A person places within, completely, his (or her, *gasp*) mouth the contained testicles of a man--"teabagger." You remain on my list for the simple reason that I doubt your motives for your admission, which I reproduce below. I suspect your motive is the age-old, pervasive, human propensity to "hide a bad motive underneath a good one." The quote is from a book written in mid-20th century, which will remain anonymous until I decide to reveal the title of that book. . . My first reaction is that you succumbed after you thought I would post the "initial reason" that you were placed on my ignore list. I may or may not determine whether I was correct. Interesting. Fair enough, but you seem to be esoteric an awful lot in your posts. Interesting. Yes, I believe I do. It was a mistake, an error in judgement; people in the tea party did not call themselves that. I took a political commentator too literally when they made a joke, and in a playful mood I repeated the joke without thinking it through. I apologize for the inaccurate statement and the offensive imagery of the statement.

In this review of the book, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism--fyi, the title of the review is What Can Replace Religion?--there can be found numerous examples of the mis-use of the words "evolve" and "evolution". I have, consistently, objected to the use of the word outside biology, in fields of study wide and far removed from the subject of biological development. The word "evolve" is used when the word "develop" is the equivalent. This was to be my conclusion. Prior to that, I decided to take a look at my favorite online dictionary. I started with the entry for develop and went directly to the alphabetical list of "related words." I did not find the word "evolve." (There can be found the word, "evolute", but this is a term from Geometry.) I became very suspicious and smelled a rat. I went directly to the list of related words for "evolve" to confirm that "develop" is absent. (It is, but I did find that, "dream up", is a "related word" of evolve, which is a hoot.) Above the lists of "related words" for words, the Webster page always places the WordNet Dictionary entry for the subject word. This section contains curious entries for "evolve": . .I doubt that anyone who hasn't already disengaged from society will dispute that we all live in a land of confusion. (Could be a song: Genesis, Disturbed, etc.) When I read such things as, "The Cosmologist's essay attempts to describe how galaxies evolved", I may ask, will it include any references to genetic mutation, random or otherwise? If I'm feeling less combative, I might ask, will it include the cosmological equivalent of natural selection? I have no doubt that someone could provide a description of the mechanism by which the "fittest" galaxy survives. In the book-review at the American Renaissance link above, can be found references to "natural selection": . .What is the appropriate difference between "evolve" and "develop?" In the quote of the French anthropologist we find, "...a ... form of eugenics ... should be discovered and developed." When humans create or invent things, they develop those things over time, possibly decades, sometimes centuries. When a historical account of these developments is written, one may find a description of how they evolved. There is every reason to expect the name "Land of Confusion" to be accurate forevermore...up to the alien invasion, after which a whole lot of clarity will "develop."

. The first sentence renders all that is above from your quote irrelevant. . . The first sentence renders all that is above from your quote irrelevant. The second sentence demonstrates that didn't you comprehend 1 through 4 from post #24. You still head the list; Your post #25 would be sufficient reason if you never provided the initial reason. Do you understand the reference to the initial reason? I would not bet anything that you do. I'm certain that nobody else does. I will track-down a link to that post.

. . Mr Summers, perpetuation of the low-quality of debate is the responsibility of those who participate in the perpetuation of the low-quality of debate. I have stated the obvious, no offense to anyone. I now ask, Do you intend to be part of the solution or part of the perpetual problem? In the top-most quote from "w-the-w", do you Mr. Summers understand this??: . . Please demonstrate to us all that you do with a rewording of that sentence. I will wait for your reply of a statement (rewording) or a statement that you refuse to do so. I will give my interpretation of it's meaning in leui of yours.

'Appeal To Authority' VS 'Appeal To False Authority' Appeal to Authority, one name for the subject fallacy, goes by a several additional names, one of which is "appeal to false authority." A short time after I began to post here and saw the charges of violations of one or another of the logical fallacies by name, I came to the conclusion that some of the names for them were not helpful and that taking the time to associate such names to the violation itself, did not help me in THE essential skill of critical analysis. I have stated prior and will state again that referent analysis, honing that skill will lead to success in critical analysis--in every and all intellectual endeavors. The recent exchanges concerning the "argument from authority" fallacy in this thread, have drawn attention to what I have identified as a problem with goes by the name "Appeal to Authority." . I quote myself, which means it's a not a good day. . . At the end of the day--I cite my continuous identification of the errors committed by a certain member who wields the fallacies by name--that one must be able to identify what's wrong with an assertion without having to know whether it does or does not violate some named fallacy. Will anyone take issue with my analysis of this named fallacy or my insistence that it is referent analysis is superior to fallacy analysis?

. . . What we discover is that we have in the "six-sided die" scenario one similar to my scenario of the first coin created which has not YET been flipped for the first time. ... . You have no clue about the role of statistics in the subject. The reason is that you have no clue about the limits of the mathematics of probablity. The mathematics of probability are base upon statistics. Your illiteracy is "twice cooked." To repeat,what was excluded from "what if"'s excerpt at the link and what supports all my assertions: In summary, probability theory enables us to find the consequences of a given ideal world, while statistical theory enables us to to measure the extent to which our world is ideal.

. . The probability of an event occurring that has NOT YET occurred is not statistically calculable. "In general: Probability of an event happening = Number of ways it can happen (divided by) Total number of outcomes" (source) This is no surprise as a divisor of 0 is undefined. To return to the teacher's question. We need to know whether the lot in question requires parking registration. If it does and all the spots are reserved by pre-registered drivers, then there are 70 unique plate numbers elligible to appear in the lot and no others are elligible to be seen. This last then-clause is true if there is a tag reader or security guard who controls which cars are permitted to enter. In this case, we may be justified in assuming that ONLY a fixed set of 69 plates out of X total in the USA MAY be seen by the teacher on any day on which classes are being held. What's not explicit is whether the teacher pulls into the lot on a vacation day or a day that classes are being held. Further, if the teacher has plate with "LHS-230" on it, then he will not see his own plate. Further still, we have not been told whether the lot MUST BE FULL with 70 when he enters--his car being the 71st--or whether the lot MUST BE FULL and he is the 70th. I think this is a good beginning. I have read the entire thread yet and apologize had someone already posted this. . Old posts, new posts, not exactly "same as it ever was." Please note that I asked the question, The probability of an event occurring that has NOT YET occurred and gave the answer, in October 2015. The asylum for the insane.

. I have concluded, an agreement with you, of sorts, that you are illiterate with respect to probablitity and statistics, with an explanation of the reason I include "statistics" in the assertion. Let me be clear that I have NOT made any assertion as to your knowledge of statistics. I dont need that as the accuracy of my assertion about your knowledge of probability extends to and can be inferred without risk to the subject of statistics. . . We get real sentences when they are copied/pasted from a link. That's the only time. Here is what follows "what if"'s excerpt from the same link. What if it was included????. We will now discover: . . What we discover is that we have in the "six-sided die" scenario one similar to my scenario of the first coin created which has not YET been flipped for the first time. This is where a sane person "rests his case." I thank "what if" for providing exquisite evidence for my case. The truly breathtaking part is that "m-the-w" "liked" your post--ROFLMFAO!!!!^20.

. But neither will an inncent person. ... . An innocent may or may not leave evidence of being at or near the scene of a crime, intentionally or otherwise. It happens every day, ever week, and so on.

. . Dear Mr. "StormanNorman", Stating, "This is a debate forum", does not indicate the quality of what can be found in that forum. It is obvious to anyone who can comprehend what's written here that--and I've identified them clearly--that those who are perpetuating the low-quality of debate are being reinforced (to continue) by others who engage the offenders. There comes a time when one must be asked, Are you going to continue to be part of the problem or are you going to be part of the solution? I now ask you, which part do you intend to play?

. . I will try again: 1. "Webster's 1913 Dictionary" section contains the Webster's definition for the subject word; 2. "Webster's 1913 Dictionary" section does NOT provide synonyms for the subject word; 3. "WordNet Dictionary" does NOT contain the Webster's definition for the subject word; 4. "Related Words" section DOES contain all the synonyms AND related words that Webster-dictionary.org considers to be BOTH synonymous and related to the subject word; I once owned a 1913 Webster's dictionary. There is no reason to put my favorite online dictionary within quotes. The ignore list is as follows with a few dedication-songs to be determined: Goku (Quasi) Blitzking (Dreaming) what if (Everything In Its Right Place; with alternative Planet Telex) KenJackson (tbd) Gneiss girl (Mother of Pearl, with alternate, Really Good Time) m-the pee-stream (Supermarket Nightmare)

Yes the flood is predictive in the sense that we would expect to find dead things buried all over the earth, if we hadn't found them atheists would have had a field day and would now be arguing, "haha, where is this flood then, there would be dead things all over if water had inundated everything, and especially marine forms!"[/font] I wouldn't expect 95% of fossils to be marine invertebrates, I would expect a much better representation of terrestrial life if the continents had been completely inundated. And of course as I keep repeating and you keep avoiding, if this almighty cataclysm surged ocean water so violently how on earth do we have completely separate fossil assemblages in discrete layers rather than everything being mixed up as the water scoured the land and transported sediment and dead things thousands of miles across the super continent ? Is Hurricane Irma going to leave nice defined sedimentary layers with particular dead animals and plants in each layer behind when the storm surge subsides, or will it just be a tangled, incoherent mess ? .

It's worse than I thought. . . Much worse than I thought. Where is Mr. Summers when we need him? . Unbleeping believable. Probability and Statistics. That sentence you wrote indicates total illiteracy. If there is no data, no statistics, a probability, a number can't be calculated. Rewind history to the day before the first coin was flipped, before the first coin. Do I have to remind anybody that there was a time when no coins existed? Who could "say" in this insane asylum? Somebody created the first coin, heads and tails; two sides, an edge. The first "coin" in the world. Now, you tell me while I have a gun to your head, how many times it will land heads and how many tails in this actual, factual scenario, because, YES there was a first coin and before that nobody had flipped one. Do you understand? FACT! indesputable. You play like a child with these concepts and FACTS. When someone invents something new, there may be no data, no previous experience, nothing.

. What does that mean?

. The current list and dedication songs: Goku (tbd) Blitzking (Dreaming) what if (Everything In Its Right Place) KenJackson (tbd) Gneiss girl (Mother of Pearl) m-the pee-stream (Supermarket Nightmare) We'll take that as a, "yes" to What If's question then shall we? I've noticed Schera pulls his list out like a cowboy draws his gun, when he has no comeback. What is this list, a list of literate, knowledgeable people, it looks like to me. It's most of the active members of the forum. I have noticed a couple posts by people on the list have been quoted by Schera after he said they were put on his "ignore" list and before anyone else quoted them. . Are you really that oblivious?

What's breathtaking--in a bad way--is that you don't understand what's going on and the reason I've persisted. I didn't invent the question, "What is the probability of an event happening which has not yet occurred?" The answer to that question was most definitely answered in the two semesters of Probability and Statistics I took in the early 80s. One who can answer the question, knows how probability (and statistics) are a mathematical tool and when they are not. What I couldn't abide is you dragging your putative knowledge of the subject into our pet subjects and wielding that illiteracy to bludgeon others and then gloating. What's worse, and this is the heart of the matter, you probably have no clue as to the reason I included "statistics" in this discussion. The two semesters were named "Probability and Statistics, I, II", yes, but what's the purpose of the statistics? The probability of an event occurring that has not yet occurred can't be calculated. That answer is not subjective. . . . The above is adequate for my purposes, with respect to the specific question. I will now demonstrate the danger of thinking one knows something about probability. I think I asked it in a previous post, but got no replies. What is the probability of the event of your death? It is an event that has not yet occurred! What is the probability that you will die? There is all the world of difference from being able to calculate a probability for an event and the "likeliness" that it will occur. That's where statistics are employed. I have to catch a bus.

. The current list and dedication songs: Goku (tbd) Blitzking (Dreaming, Blondie; Midnight Special, 05/10/1979) what if (Everything In Its Right Place, Radiohead) KenJackson (tbd) Gneiss girl (Mother of Pearl, Roxy Music) m-the pee-stream (Supermarket Nightmare, Victim's Family)

. . I don't need your permission for anything except what was written in a private message. Do you follow? If you don't want anyone to know your illiteracy with respect to probability, then you won't answer the question you answered in the private message: said question asked in the forum. That's right. The question asked in the forum by me, you answered in a private message where, now, I risk being banned if I reveal it without your permission. But I don't need that permission, now do I? I've asked it verbatim from the original, above, and I'll do it again, so that everyone can infer your illiteracy from evasion, unless, of course, you give a correct answer to the simple question: What is the probability of an event happening which has not yet occurred? --------------------edit------------ This is another apparent fundamental error. As I explained before, fossils are not a matter of "If X exists, we can find it here". First, we're looking for the remains of X, which would be "If X existed, we can find evidence of it". But it's still not that, because not everything that exists leaves behind remains to find. It's "If X existed, we might find evidence of it". Because it's not something that happens every time, finding a fossil of a species does not imply that you will find another fossil of a different species in the same area. The best you can do is a statistical argument that if there were X individuals present and the probability of them ending up fossilized is Y we can expect to find X*Y fossils, but to do that you need to know X and Y, which as far as I know haven't appeared in your arugments yet. .

... . Insufferable pseudo-sentences that no one should abide, with this particular case a potential question. The reason I imply everyone should object is that it will never change unless someone teaches him how to treat us. Can anyone find the posts where the text string "one other thing..." is followed by the text string "was just one"???? as is implied by "G g"'s pseudo-quote? Did something precede "was just one"? If I can find a song about the pseudo-sentence, then I'd be happy.

. What is the probability of an event happening which has not yet occurred?

The analogy using natural phenomenon to create a man-made object is so thoroughly preposterous that, well, I quote from the other thread. . . To quote myself: . . "m[] the [pee-stream]", I do have one question about your original tornado/junkyard/747 analogy: Do the contents of the pre-tornado junkyard represent living or non-living entities? In other words, is the tornado REQUIRED to perform the "immaculate conception" THEN the monumental result of a non-living, man-made 747? I've identified YET another inadequacy of the analogy. . If I were a creationist and someone like this peddled such fatuity, then I would never tell anyone I was creationist.