.....Griffin Announces "To the Moon and Mars" a Religious Quest !!!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:39:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: : : works.
: :
: : Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
: : premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.
:
: : Can you identify them?
:
: Premise: Science is a form of faith.
: Conclusion: Science works.

: As I suspected, you cannot.

And you did, as a means of correction?

No. I was not attempting to make a logical argument. When I do
attempt to do so, I (unlike you) almost always succeed.

I was simply making two independent declarative statements about the
nature of science. The fact that you thought the second statement was
somehow derived from the first is your problem, not mine, or that of
anyone else with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius).

But your lecture of syllogisms to another poster and here you are spouting
off with nothing based upon logic. Yes, what you expect from others is
very different from what you give of yourself. That is intellectually
dishonest.

My "lecture" was in response to an actual flawed argument--a
conclusion that in no way followed from the premises (and for future
reference, there need not be only two).

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
I am talking

from ignorance.

I'm really

doomed and
wasteful

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:39:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : : But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: : : : works.
: : :
: : : Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
: : : premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.
: :
: : : Can you identify them?
: :
: : Premise: Science is a form of faith.
: : Conclusion: Science works.
:
: : As I suspected, you cannot.
:
: And you did, as a means of correction?

: No. I was not attempting to make a logical argument. When I do
: attempt to do so, I (unlike you) almost always succeed.

'Attempt' is the operative word. As to your success, that is your own
opinion.

: I was simply making two independent declarative statements about the
: nature of science. The fact that you thought the second statement was
: somehow derived from the first is your problem, not mine, or that of
: anyone else with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius).

The fact that you lectured someone about using a syllogism to make their
case and then you don't have to makes you not one to listen to or take
seriously.

: But your lecture of syllogisms to another poster and here you are spouting
: off with nothing based upon logic. Yes, what you expect from others is
: very different from what you give of yourself. That is intellectually
: dishonest.

: My "lecture" was in response to an actual flawed argument--a
: conclusion that in no way followed from the premises (and for future
: reference, there need not be only two).

And your argument as presented is flawed in the same manner for doing
exactly what the other poster didn't do!

Geez, you honestly believe what you say is the truth and what you hear is
BS, necessarily. Or the heard BS is just fine just as long as it's in-line
with your established belief system. Rand (and I'm doing you a favor
here, believe it of not -you SHOULD believe it), you really ought to
challenege your beliefs as they limit you.

If you truly are a mouthpiece for the commercial space segment, then no
wonder it's in the crapper!

Yeah, you're the one on want to listen to about commercial spaceflight
economics....NOT!

Eric

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:39:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: But your lecture of syllogisms to another poster and here you are spouting
: off with nothing based upon logic. Yes, what you expect from others is
: very different from what you give of yourself. That is intellectually
: dishonest.

: My "lecture" was in response to an actual flawed argument--a
: conclusion that in no way followed from the premises (and for future
: reference, there need not be only two).

And your argument as presented is flawed in the same manner for doing
exactly what the other poster didn't do!

Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
moron.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:39:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : But your lecture of syllogisms to another poster and here you are spouting
: : off with nothing based upon logic. Yes, what you expect from others is
: : very different from what you give of yourself. That is intellectually
: : dishonest.
:
: : My "lecture" was in response to an actual flawed argument--a
: : conclusion that in no way followed from the premises (and for future
: : reference, there need not be only two).
:
: And your argument as presented is flawed in the same manner for doing
: exactly what the other poster didn't do!

: Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
: moron.

Right, ad hominem is all you have...
Silly me, for thinking debate and logic are within your realm.

Eric

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:54:46 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : My "lecture" was in response to an actual flawed argument--a
: : conclusion that in no way followed from the premises (and for future
: : reference, there need not be only two).
:
: And your argument as presented is flawed in the same manner for doing
: exactly what the other poster didn't do!

: Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
: moron.

Right, ad hominem is all you have...
Silly me, for thinking debate and logic are within your realm.

That wasn't an ad hominem. It was an objective diagnosis, based on
the bulk of your posts.

You're too stupid to even know what an ad hominem is, but I'll explain
it once again for the uninitiated.

If I had written, "your statement makes no sense, because you're a
moron," that would be an ad hominem (even if it were true, as it would
almost invariably be in your case, particularly with regard to the
latter). What I did was state a fact (I wasn't presenting or
attempting to present an argument), and I just threw in the insult
(which was in fact just a clinical analysis) for lagniappe. The two
had nothing to do with each other.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
moron.


I've debated/argued countless times in all kinds of ng's.
And there's one great constant to them all.
The person that's losing the debate ends it with a
bunch of insults. And if they plonk also, you know
you won big-time.

There is some solace in being predictable though.
I suppose.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:53:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
moron.


I've debated/argued countless times in all kinds of ng's.
And there's one great constant to them all.
The person that's losing the debate ends it with a
bunch of insults. And if they plonk also, you know
you won big-time.

laughing

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

And if you don't understand, after all these years, and thousands of
moronic posts, that Eric Chomko is indeed a moron, then it's one more
strike against your own intelligence.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:53:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Once again, I didn't present an argument, or even purport to, you
moron.


I've debated/argued countless times in all kinds of ng's.
And there's one great constant to them all.
The person that's losing the debate ends it with a
bunch of insults. And if they plonk also, you know
you won big-time.

laughing

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

And if you don't understand, after all these years, and thousands of
moronic posts, that Eric Chomko is indeed a moron, then it's one more
strike against your own intelligence.


Dude, you lost a debate over the definition of a word.
I mean, you have little ground to be lecturing anyone
about anything. And your rudeness is just plain
boring.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
I've debated/argued countless times in all kinds of ng's.
And there's one great constant to them all.

You lose.

There is some solace in being predictable though.

Hope it makes you happy.