Originally posted by Pollux V
Incorrect. I could be trying to be serious and funny at the same time.
I find it amusing that you consider a direct consequence of the rules of logic incorrect. Note that you did not include a case that was outside of the cases "trying to be funny" or "not trying to be funny". Instead, you state that you were attempting to be "serious and funny" which clearly falls into the first category. I suggest you study logic a bit more carefully before trying to disprove one of its fundamental ideas.
Originally posted by Pollux V
Also incorrect. The with us or against us mentality is one that considers only two possibilities no matter the circumstance, ...
As I discussed in my previous post, this mentality is flawed for the aforementioned reasons.
Originally posted by Pollux V
Beyond those three there are infinite varying degrees of either seriousness or comedy--thus, the shades of gray between black and white.
Those cases are included in my initial analysis of your post. All instances in which were trying to be funny are addressed in the first case, and those in which you are not are addressed in the second case. Logic dictates that the negation method covers all cases since the statement P OR ~P is a tautology.
Originally posted by Pollux V
I see what you're trying to stay, but you're still wrong. ... I am not saying these things aloud--they are not my words, they are my (pretend) actions. I am typing them, but they fall under a category different than the text I am writing now, because they are not spoken words but are instead actions. The asterisk (*) defines when events occur instead of spoken words, just like html code. So although I was typing, my mouth was still shut, both in the real world and in cyberspace as well.
Your argument continues to weaken your ideas, and add support to mine. You even clarify the distinction between a gesture in the real world, and one in the virtual, and that to "type" a gesture is a premeditated act, thus removing it from the realm of subconscious, or even low level conscious thought. Thus, even though the asterisk may signal an action, the act of typing forces you to convey it in the exact same manner as any other idea on this forum, thus forcing you to "open your mouth".
Originally posted by Pollux V
I felt it necessary to make my statements stronger (as well as in bold) because you clearly needed to integrate them into your psyche.
It may have not been clear in my previous post, but by utilizing profanity, you have weakened your statements, since use of such language reflects negatively upon the poster.
Originally posted by Pollux V
Dapthar, you've done nothing but be impolite and unnecessarily vicious to everyone I've so far seen you interact with.
Then apparently you do not frequent the Physics & Math forum. In there, I answer questions that are within my scope to the best of my ability, for the posters I respond to make it a point to be polite.
Simply so you do not have to take my word for it, I direct you to the following threads:
Analytic Functions ,
Basic vectors?, and
Frozen Clouds. Granted this not a large amount of examples, but since this post is my 38th, it should suffice.
Many more examples of posts where I attempt to help others are available if you simply visit my post history, located at the following link:
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=214907.
Originally posted by Pollux V
I do not follow this regimen by any means, and for the most part I interact with people in either a friendly or a friendly-cocky manner while on this forum and while also in the real world. Although it's possible that I am wrong, you are the only person I know that I can think of that is not friendly with me.
I do not follow the aforementioned regimen that you have ascribed to me, and counterexamples to your generalization are shown above.
Originally posted by Pollux V
Almost anything can be argued as being relative, humor being one of the easiest topics to do so. That's why I made a tally, to account for different opinions. So far I'm still beating you.
Again, I discussed the futility of such actions previously, but to reiterate, the majority can not absolutely determine the humor content of an idea. Thus, it does not matter if you get 50 people who think you are funny, it will not change my opinion of the humor content of your earlier post, since humor is relative.
Your arguments were a great deal more organized this time, but it does not compensate for your use of crude humor, or the poor methodology used to support your ideas.
