"or nuking japan when it was already defeated just to test the new gizmo."
You keep saying this like it's irrefutable fact, when the reality is there isn't one iota of fact that supports that statement. Every bit of evidence you and the morons like you who further this idea have is the result of post-facto analysis and speculation.
Stop lying guy, you'll look like less of an ignorant too that way.
"To act like U.S. policy today is guided by disinterested humanitarianism is an obvious distortion of reality."
To act as though people who are committing evil today are doing so as a result of a 3 decade old policy is an obvious distortion of reality.
You do evil or you don't. Blaming "Reagan" is the kind of stupid shit children do to justify their poor behavior, and is totally transparent. You can't justify evil NOW by pretending 30 year old events require said evil to occur.
Unless of course, you're an ignorant Taliban apologist...
"Therefore, when you started using "gymnastics" after I used "gymnastics," it was proper for me to assume that what you were asking about was the same "gymnastics" that I was referring to."
No, it's never "proper" to assume, especially when your use of the term is incorrect in the first place.
"Therefore, I properly assumed you meant "artistic gymnastics" by "gymnastics."?"
NO, you JUST assumed it,m because that's what YOU thought, but YOU were wrong.
"Therefore I was correct when I said "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of "gymnastics.""
That statement is never correct, no matter how you attempt to frame it, so no, you were not correct.
"Now, where do we disagree?"
We disagree on two main points 1) You think your assumptions were correct and valid. They were not, assumptions rarely are that's why you're encouraged to avoid making them. 2) rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics. You are trying to manufacture a scenario where that is not the case, but such scenario, while it may exist in theory (I have no idea when that would be), is not present here. YOU decided that YOUR use of the word "gymnastics" was something different than the stated definition of "gymnastics" and based on YOUR incorrect asumptions and attempts to redefine a word, you're arguing that you're right.
I'm arguing that anyone who claims that "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of gymnastics is a fool.
And I'm irrefutably right.
"understand that "gymnastics" doesn't always mean "set of activities including rhythmic gymnastics and artistic gymnastics.""
And I never claimed it did, MY claim was that "rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics" and apart from specious "reasoning" you have yet to demonstrate that it isn't.
"For Christ's sake, I studied gymnastics, I'd think I know."
And yet you don't, argument from authority, so your ignorance, by your own admission, is that much worse.
And support your point or admit you can't. I said "Find ONE source that specifically says Rhythmic Gymnastics is not gymnastics, and I'll concede your point." and you didn't.
"I'm saying that until you came and started dicking around, everyone was using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics."
Then you came and started playing word games."
HEY FUCKWIT, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ATTEMPTED TO SAY RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS ARE NOT GYMNASTICS. Is that not a "word game", or does "word game" mean "used the correct definition" to you?
Lastly, I wasn't talking about "everyone" guy, I was talking about what YOU said, and why YOU were wrong. If there were others who were also wrong, my statement applies to them too.
However, the fact that you were ALL wrong doesn't do a fucking thing to make YOU less wrong, no matter how many times you claim "everyone was using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics."
You were wrong, you got called on it, and instead of being a man about how obviously wrong you were, you tried to defend a stupid position by supporting it with stupid reasoning.
No, but if it was it would be what I had been reduced to.
"Fingers in your ears shouting 'IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!' "
Nope, I never said "IS NOT IS NOT" anywhere in our discussion, I just reiterated the fact that you lost and your vote is mooted.
You don't read well do you?
"You just don't have the skills, and you made the CARDINAL mistake of such contests: you let your opponent know you care. "
I do , I care about mooting your vote. It seems that you have no way to deal with that, so you keep telling me I've lost this "contest" despite the fact that I've stopped engagin you in any kind of discussion long ago.
If I care, and I've already stopped, what does that say about YOU continuing to reply even after I've made it clear I've settled on my course of action and no longer give a fuck what you think?
OH right, it sways YOU care MORE than I do. Oops, I guess your "CARDINAL mistake" was telling me my mistake was something YOU CONTINUE TO DO.
"After that, it's a completely one sided affair. You lose your cool, you lose the fight."
Yes, I mooted your vote and you tried to do something about it, but failed miserably. So yes, it has been one sided, and when you lost your cool and continued to reply after I made it clear I didn't give a fuck about your opinion, you lost the fight. When I said "still mooted" and your reply was anything AT ALL, you admitted you cared, and you admitted I got to you, and you lost. And I loved it.
But we knew that, why are you admitting something we all saw you do?
PS you vote is still mooted bitch. Nothing you can say will change that, but you'll try, completely in opposition to your moronic attempt to claim you don't care.
"You can be a pedant and ask if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of the group "gymnastics" [as understood to NOT mean merely "artistic gymnastics] all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that no one here but you was treating "gymnastics" to mean anything but "artistic gymnastics."
All that can be true, and you'd still be wrong. You said "Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir." which is a subset of gymnastics, regardless of what you or anyone else was treating gymnastics as. The fact that you use vernacular to support your assertion about a non-vernacular definition shows that you know you're wrong.
How about this. Find ONE source that specifically says Rhythmic Gymnastics is not gymnastics, and I'll concede your point. I've given facts that say it is, so it's up to you to support a point that you know is wrong.
"Gymnastics" is the common term for the non-rhythmic competition (also known as "artistic gymnastics"), so, no, you're wrong."
Is or is not rhythmic gymnastics a subset of gymnastics?
It is.
YOU are wrong, and a douche to boot.
"It looks like you're supporting my point right there. My argument is that X is not a subset of Y even if the word Y appears in the word X, because Y is merely a short form of another term."
And you're demonstrably wrong.
"Well, seeing as how I'm right on the primary criticism you've leveled, I guess moderation worked perfectly well."
My criticism was that rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics.
Is it?
Right, so despite the fact that you claim to be right, You're demonstrably not, and you're embarrassing yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.
Rhythmic gymnastics is a sport in which single competitors or pairs, trios or even more (generally five) manipulate one or two apparatuses: rope, hoop, ball, clubs and ribbon. Rhythmic Gymnastics is a sport that combines elements of ballet, gymnastics, theatrical dance, and apparatus manipulation. The victor is the participant who earns the most points, as awarded by a panel of judges, for leaps, balances, pivots, flexibility, apparatus handling, and artistic effect.
The sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), changed the Code of Points in 2001, 2003 and 2005 to emphasize technical elements and reduce the subjectivity of judging. Before 2001, judging was on a scale of 10 like that of Artistic Gymnastics.
"This isn't true, and I have the evidence to back it."
NO you don't, what you have is evidence that if you change the fundamentals of a program to make it appealing to women, then women will enroll.
If you read your own link (thanks for the pdf warning...) you'll see they changed admission requirements, curriculum, and grading scales. I don't think the graduate equivalent of "teaching for the test" demonstrates anything other than the fact that is is possible, with enough contortion, to get a high percentage of women in a CS program.
"Eh. I'm going to have to go with subjective; a boxer can get more points if his punches are "better" than the other boxers, despite the other boxer having punched more."
Not in any boxing I've ever seen, and I've seen more than you, for certain.
Your argument is correct, but your example isn't. All of the things that make the punches "better" are actually measurable actions.
However, one of the categories in scoring is a term often referred to as "controlling the action" with another I've heard often being "ring generalship". Neither of those could be considered objective.
"Also, the best I could do was to rebut your argument and throw on a lame joke."
You didn't rebut anything, you just asserted that certain things are impossible, but your evidence for that was non-existent, and your argument is rebutted by reality and years of research in behavioral psychology.
All you did was make unsubstantiated claims and presume your own inability to accomplish something translates into that thing being impossible to accomplish.
"You clearly don't have kids - most teenagers these days won't let their parents into their life."
Excuse my vitriol, but why the fuck do the kids think they get to LET parents do anything? If you are a parent, and you're allowing your kids to "not let you into their lives" then you're a shitty parent.
YOU make the rules, that's what PARENTS do. GOOD parents don't get "let into" their children's lives, they're already there and there's no way to get them out. That's why good parents are good parents.
BAD parents make stupid excuses like "society (advertising?) encourages teenagers to be self-sufficient and live their own life."
"Sometimes, all the parents can do is be supportive and listen when their kid doesn't want to talk. "
Bullshit. Double bullshit. If YOU as a parent decide talking is in order, then you fucking talk. This idea that kids can override your decision as a parent comes from lazy parents who need to rationalize their laziness as compassion and understanding.
"If the kid won't talk to his/her parents... what did you want the parents to do? Tie them up and force them to speak?"
Nope, it's far easier than that, and your disingenuous rush to "tie them up" shows that you want to frame the argument and pretend you have no control over a situation. GOOD parents would find the motivator they needed and get it done, bad parents make stupid excuses and use hyperbolic nonsense like "what do you want the parents to do tie them up?"
"Maybe this will open your eyes and you will learn that interactions on the internet are, in fact, very real."
I don't think the behavior of a mentally ill individual demonstrates anything about interactions on the internet at all.
Mentally healthy people treat the internet as exactly what it is, and behave accordingly. Mentally ill people behave, well, as mentally ill people behave and shouldn't be used as a measuring stick, unless your goal is to be completely derided and ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
"All Im saying is that there is no need to go and say: oh, that was done for the good of the japaneese and nukes are a great idea for humanity!"
No one ever said that, that's what's known as a straw man.
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that someone ignorant enough to make the posts you have needs a fallacy like that to support their "argument".
"or nuking japan when it was already defeated just to test the new gizmo."
You keep saying this like it's irrefutable fact, when the reality is there isn't one iota of fact that supports that statement. Every bit of evidence you and the morons like you who further this idea have is the result of post-facto analysis and speculation.
Stop lying guy, you'll look like less of an ignorant too that way.
"Large portions of Afghanistan are still under effective Taliban control"
Yeah, caves and desert shit holes that no one else wants.
"and elections mean didly squat if the elected government has no real power."
Well, then they were great, as the government does have real power.
"Your view of the situation is awefully rose colored."
And your view of the situation is awfully ignorant of reality.
People have free will.
"To act like U.S. policy today is guided by disinterested humanitarianism is an obvious distortion of reality."
To act as though people who are committing evil today are doing so as a result of a 3 decade old policy is an obvious distortion of reality.
You do evil or you don't. Blaming "Reagan" is the kind of stupid shit children do to justify their poor behavior, and is totally transparent. You can't justify evil NOW by pretending 30 year old events require said evil to occur.
Unless of course, you're an ignorant Taliban apologist...
"No, I don't believe that's what I said."
Look, again, you're wrong.
"Disagreeing with the truth may be stupid."
I agree, so why did you do it?
PS, I don't care, I just want you to know you're a fucking moron.
Are you still here?
Damn you must be PISSED that I mooted you.
"I keep replying too you because I can't take it that I lost"
FYP.
MOOTED!
"I haven't made someone as this mad for ages"
Why are you proud of making yourself angry? I'm very happy about mooting you.
"Please, keep entertaining me. The more you reply, the happier I am."
Well, the more YOU reply, the more money the GOP gets, so why are you happy about financially supporting the GOP?
You lost. Again. Go ahead and respond, we both know you're not capable of avoiding it.
But you'll still be...
MOOTED!
"Therefore, when you started using "gymnastics" after I used "gymnastics," it was proper for me to assume that what you were asking about was the same "gymnastics" that I was referring to."
No, it's never "proper" to assume, especially when your use of the term is incorrect in the first place.
"Therefore, I properly assumed you meant "artistic gymnastics" by "gymnastics."?"
NO, you JUST assumed it,m because that's what YOU thought, but YOU were wrong.
"Therefore I was correct when I said "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of "gymnastics.""
That statement is never correct, no matter how you attempt to frame it, so no, you were not correct.
"Now, where do we disagree?"
We disagree on two main points 1) You think your assumptions were correct and valid. They were not, assumptions rarely are that's why you're encouraged to avoid making them. 2) rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics. You are trying to manufacture a scenario where that is not the case, but such scenario, while it may exist in theory (I have no idea when that would be), is not present here. YOU decided that YOUR use of the word "gymnastics" was something different than the stated definition of "gymnastics" and based on YOUR incorrect asumptions and attempts to redefine a word, you're arguing that you're right.
I'm arguing that anyone who claims that "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of gymnastics is a fool.
And I'm irrefutably right.
"understand that "gymnastics" doesn't always mean "set of activities including rhythmic gymnastics and artistic gymnastics.""
And I never claimed it did, MY claim was that "rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics" and apart from specious "reasoning" you have yet to demonstrate that it isn't.
"For Christ's sake, I studied gymnastics, I'd think I know."
And yet you don't, argument from authority, so your ignorance, by your own admission, is that much worse.
And support your point or admit you can't. I said "Find ONE source that specifically says Rhythmic Gymnastics is not gymnastics, and I'll concede your point." and you didn't.
"I'm saying that until you came and started dicking around, everyone was using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics."
Then you came and started playing word games."
HEY FUCKWIT, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ATTEMPTED TO SAY RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS ARE NOT GYMNASTICS. Is that not a "word game", or does "word game" mean "used the correct definition" to you?
Lastly, I wasn't talking about "everyone" guy, I was talking about what YOU said, and why YOU were wrong. If there were others who were also wrong, my statement applies to them too.
However, the fact that you were ALL wrong doesn't do a fucking thing to make YOU less wrong, no matter how many times you claim "everyone was using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics."
You were wrong, you got called on it, and instead of being a man about how obviously wrong you were, you tried to defend a stupid position by supporting it with stupid reasoning.
"My word, is that what you've been reduced too?"
No, but if it was it would be what I had been reduced to.
"Fingers in your ears shouting 'IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!' "
Nope, I never said "IS NOT IS NOT" anywhere in our discussion, I just reiterated the fact that you lost and your vote is mooted.
You don't read well do you?
"You just don't have the skills, and you made the CARDINAL mistake of such contests: you let your opponent know you care. "
I do , I care about mooting your vote. It seems that you have no way to deal with that, so you keep telling me I've lost this "contest" despite the fact that I've stopped engagin you in any kind of discussion long ago.
If I care, and I've already stopped, what does that say about YOU continuing to reply even after I've made it clear I've settled on my course of action and no longer give a fuck what you think?
OH right, it sways YOU care MORE than I do. Oops, I guess your "CARDINAL mistake" was telling me my mistake was something YOU CONTINUE TO DO.
"After that, it's a completely one sided affair. You lose your cool, you lose the fight."
Yes, I mooted your vote and you tried to do something about it, but failed miserably. So yes, it has been one sided, and when you lost your cool and continued to reply after I made it clear I didn't give a fuck about your opinion, you lost the fight. When I said "still mooted" and your reply was anything AT ALL, you admitted you cared, and you admitted I got to you, and you lost. And I loved it.
But we knew that, why are you admitting something we all saw you do?
PS you vote is still mooted bitch. Nothing you can say will change that, but you'll try, completely in opposition to your moronic attempt to claim you don't care.
And you'll lose again.
"You can be a pedant and ask if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of the group "gymnastics" [as understood to NOT mean merely "artistic gymnastics] all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that no one here but you was treating "gymnastics" to mean anything but "artistic gymnastics."
All that can be true, and you'd still be wrong. You said "Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir." which is a subset of gymnastics, regardless of what you or anyone else was treating gymnastics as. The fact that you use vernacular to support your assertion about a non-vernacular definition shows that you know you're wrong.
How about this. Find ONE source that specifically says Rhythmic Gymnastics is not gymnastics, and I'll concede your point. I've given facts that say it is, so it's up to you to support a point that you know is wrong.
Still mooted.
"Gymnastics" is the common term for the non-rhythmic competition (also known as "artistic gymnastics"), so, no, you're wrong."
Is or is not rhythmic gymnastics a subset of gymnastics?
It is.
YOU are wrong, and a douche to boot.
"It looks like you're supporting my point right there. My argument is that X is not a subset of Y even if the word Y appears in the word X, because Y is merely a short form of another term."
And you're demonstrably wrong.
"Well, seeing as how I'm right on the primary criticism you've leveled, I guess moderation worked perfectly well."
My criticism was that rhythmic gymnastics is a subset of gymnastics.
Is it?
Right, so despite the fact that you claim to be right, You're demonstrably not, and you're embarrassing yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.
However, just because you're fun to prove wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmic_gymnastics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Gymnastique
"So, how do you know where I live?"
It's in your journal moron.
MOOOOTED!
PS, there are vote trading service available, so even if we weren't in the same state I could moot you.
"Does it burn inside, knowing you've failed? "
Sorry, you have me confused with your parents.
"I can only imagine how bad it must feel."
You don't have to imagine, just remember what you felt when you realized your idiot ass caused your own vote to be mooted.
I win.
"This isn't true, and I have the evidence to back it."
NO you don't, what you have is evidence that if you change the fundamentals of a program to make it appealing to women, then women will enroll.
If you read your own link (thanks for the pdf warning...) you'll see they changed admission requirements, curriculum, and grading scales. I don't think the graduate equivalent of "teaching for the test" demonstrates anything other than the fact that is is possible, with enough contortion, to get a high percentage of women in a CS program.
"Eh. I'm going to have to go with subjective; a boxer can get more points if his punches are "better" than the other boxers, despite the other boxer having punched more."
Not in any boxing I've ever seen, and I've seen more than you, for certain.
Your argument is correct, but your example isn't. All of the things that make the punches "better" are actually measurable actions.
However, one of the categories in scoring is a term often referred to as "controlling the action" with another I've heard often being "ring generalship". Neither of those could be considered objective.
"Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir."
Is rhythmic gymnastics a subset of gymnastics or not? IT IS? Hmm...
Of course, there are no cars in racing, that's auto racing...
"I wish I could mod down the editorialization."
I wish there was a legitimate method of dealing with stupid moderation, like the one on your post.
"where that has ever" and "where that has always" are not equivalent. Now go look up which of the above phrases you used."
I did, you're still wrong and that changed nothing.
"You're still wrong on the actual topic though"
I don't think your inability to read English correctly makes me wrong.
I guess if that's what they taught you "wrong" meant in your country, then you also need to ask for your parent's tax money back.
Mooting your vote while you can't do anything about it makes me smile.
"I find it hard to believe anyone as dense as you would have voted anything but Repuglican anyway."
I voted third party the last three elections.
Thanks to YOU, that ends this year.
And the fact that you obviously hate it, and know I got over on you, makes me so happy I don't have words.
Here's some more good news, I'm going to donate 100 bucks to the GOP every time you post between now and the election.
MOOOOOOTED!
"Damn straight."
So, what you're saying is that you're an imbecile?
Go ahead, sue me.
"Also, the best I could do was to rebut your argument and throw on a lame joke."
You didn't rebut anything, you just asserted that certain things are impossible, but your evidence for that was non-existent, and your argument is rebutted by reality and years of research in behavioral psychology.
All you did was make unsubstantiated claims and presume your own inability to accomplish something translates into that thing being impossible to accomplish.
"You clearly don't have kids - most teenagers these days won't let their parents into their life."
Excuse my vitriol, but why the fuck do the kids think they get to LET parents do anything? If you are a parent, and you're allowing your kids to "not let you into their lives" then you're a shitty parent.
YOU make the rules, that's what PARENTS do. GOOD parents don't get "let into" their children's lives, they're already there and there's no way to get them out. That's why good parents are good parents.
BAD parents make stupid excuses like "society (advertising?) encourages teenagers to be self-sufficient and live their own life."
"Sometimes, all the parents can do is be supportive and listen when their kid doesn't want to talk. "
Bullshit. Double bullshit. If YOU as a parent decide talking is in order, then you fucking talk. This idea that kids can override your decision as a parent comes from lazy parents who need to rationalize their laziness as compassion and understanding.
"If the kid won't talk to his/her parents... what did you want the parents to do? Tie them up and force them to speak?"
Nope, it's far easier than that, and your disingenuous rush to "tie them up" shows that you want to frame the argument and pretend you have no control over a situation. GOOD parents would find the motivator they needed and get it done, bad parents make stupid excuses and use hyperbolic nonsense like "what do you want the parents to do tie them up?"
"Retarded argument."
Thanks for labeling your post like that, your honesty is appreciated.
"Maybe this will open your eyes and you will learn that interactions on the internet are, in fact, very real."
I don't think the behavior of a mentally ill individual demonstrates anything about interactions on the internet at all.
Mentally healthy people treat the internet as exactly what it is, and behave accordingly. Mentally ill people behave, well, as mentally ill people behave and shouldn't be used as a measuring stick, unless your goal is to be completely derided and ignored.
"intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"
Isn't Myspace free? So by YOUR OWN definition, your argument fails irrefutably.