"Look all you have to say is "Japan can sustain it's present population sustainably" and prove it then I will be wrong."
Even more sad. When it's demonstrated to you that you've mad a mistake, you reply by changing the subject.
Nowhere did I say anything about Japan sustaining anyhting. I never even alluded to it. So knock that stupid shit off.
You made a factually incorrect statement, then based your entire argument on it. I gave you proof you were wrong, there's far more available for you to find on your own, yet you continue to troll.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your childish attempts are?
"Sorry."
I'm sure your parents are too, but they're not responsible for the embarassment to them that you've become. No, that's all you and your pathetic attempts to save face after making a factually incorrect statement and then INSISTING you were right about it, despite all evidence being against you.
All YOU have to do is not change the subject, not try to change your argument, and prove that this statement
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not having to import every square inch of wood."
is correct. Until then, you're yet another slashtroll who thinks appearing right on a webboard is more important than actually knowing the facts. And I'm right.
Really, yours is the most unseemly and pathetic attempt at equivocation I've ever seen. One day, when you grow up, you'll see how ridiculous your statements are.
Until then, your a fucking troll. And the worst part for you? You know it's true, and you can't do anything about it.
Obscenity isn't speech. (I don't beleive that, just playing devil's advocate). You are beginning your argument with the idea that obscenity is speech, and is protected by the first. Where is that stated in the Constitution?
That being said, GP was correct in coming down on you a bit. It's a little silly to make an argument based on a literal reading of the Constitution.
"THere is no appreciable difference between "there are trees but we can't get to them" and "there are no trees""
How sad. Really, that's just embarassing for you.
Ok guy, I can see what you're about. You're one of those pricks who decides when he's proven wrong that he needs to spin it somehow. Guess what?
It's not ether of the things you try to say it is, it's actually
"We have tons of trees, we just value them enough that importing them from other places is cheaper"
More importantly, you didn't say either of those things in your original post, you said this
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not (sic) having to import every square inch of wood."
And that's a fucking lie. They didn't eat through ANY of their tree population, it's just cheaper to get it elsewhere. READ THAT. C-H-E-A-P-E-R. If they wanted to harvest their own lumber, it's perfectly possible, it's just more expensive.
You were wrong, then you followed up with something even more ridiculous. One more and you make the Slashdot troll hat-trick.
"It's just as easy to accidentally stuff crap into the wrong envelope and accidentally put the wrong address on it."
No actually, it isn't. I know of no way to easily send out hundreds of copies of a document at one time with traditional mail. It happens all the time with e-mail.
"The nation's forest resources, although abundant, have not been well developed to sustain a large lumber industry. Of the 245,000 km of forests, 198000 km are classified as active forests."
245000/377835(area of japan)= around 65%.
I don't know why you think what you think, but I can't honestly say that having 65% of your land area covered by forests really supports the idea that
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not having to import every square inch of wood."
In fact, that statement is just ridiculous.
The fact is that forests in Japan are hard to reach, so logging them is more expensive than importing from somewhere else.
So, my I ask you a serious question? Why would you post something that you hadn't researched? Any search at all would have given you the information I have.
"A sleepy idiot such as much self can read that sentence and think "umm, since when did the US Democratic party want to force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected?"
Are you unaware of the CDA, and after that COPA?
Educate yourself. Keep in mind, both were signed by a Democratic president and given wide bi-partisan support.
And please, don't respond with your assessment of congress at the time, many Democrats voted for these provisions as well, and Clinton didn't use his veto.
GP made the assertion, it's up to him to support it. He stated that something was true, yet gave no evidence that the heroes of myth are equivalent to superheroes.
So why did you post to me looking for evidence? Did you do the same for the GP?
Read the Wiki. It explains it better than I could.
But more than that, you should ask yourself why you only ask for evidence from people who disagree with you, instead of from everyone making assertions. That's your bias, and you should try to improve yourself by doing away with it.
"I know you're done, but I don't care. I'm responding anyway."
Right, because you don't listen. Despite the fact I stated I was done, you decided to rant anyway. YOU DON'T LISTEN. Which is really funny because then you say this
"I don't know why you're sticking on this silly point so much."
I'm not. YOU'RE the one replying to someone who finshed commenting on the topic a while ago.
Apart from insisting you're correct when you're wrong, you should also examine why you think it's ok to call someone out for something when you're doing it yourself.
And then maybe ask yourself if that same hypocrisy and bull headedness are present in other areas. Like the current subject, which you're wrong about, but continue to argue over.
"Yawn. So your hypothesis is that its illegitimate to use the prefix 'super' as a translation for the german prefix "uber"?"
No. My position, which is correct, is that there is NO NEED to change "Overman" to "Superman" because "Overman" fits perfectly.
What Shaw did is meaningless to me, as well as to the point. For someone apparently grounded in logic, you failed t=with the introduction (repeatedly) of that silly fallacy.
And all YOU'VE done is point to Shaw and repeat "nuh uh, he said...". I'm sure you're feeling very smug, but you've actually said nothing.
"Personally, I think you should move on to your next bit of schtick and tell us that JFK proclaimed he was a jelly doughnut."
WTF does this sentence mean? Why do you have to be such a snide prick?
"In this case, the meaning of "Übermensch" would be the same as "superman"."
I agree. But that is the meaning not the translation. It would be translated as "Overman" with the definition of over in this case being "above or greater than, beyond".
It seems many many other people insist on trying to make the case that because it MEANS superman that it should translate as superman, but the use of "over" in the way I've demonstrated makes perfect sense.
Shaw got it wrong. I'm done with this silliness now.
"I seem to remember the Greeks writing tales of superheroes about 2 millennia before DC or Marvel "invented" the concept?"
No, that's wrong. You CHOOSE to believe this, but you're wrong. You honestly believe that you're the first to bring up this idea? You also honestly believe it hasn't been refuted?
The "heroes" you refer to don't fit the accepted definition of what a "superhero" is. You may not like that, but you didn't create the genre, so you don't get to define it.
"Patently, applying a term like "super hero" to fantastic heroic figures is almost devoid of any such novelty."
Correct, but that isn't what happened. You, and many like you, assume things that aren't true. The previous statement is one of those things.
Ok, so because you posted a few completely unrelated examples, you think this demonstrates what?
All of your examples are perfectly acceptable using my stated definition of what "over" meant in the case of "Ubermensch". Just because you like that the english version translates nicely, you leave out all the examples where it doesn't support your point. Sneaky that.
"and many more..."
Which matter exactly as much as your others. That is, none.
So, if you were trying to demonstrate something other than your inability to construct a coherent refutation, then you failed.
And with that, I'm finished correcting you and the others like you who accept the mistranslation.
"Except by George Bernard Shaw. Who rolled Nietzshe's concept into a play, Man and Superman, a decade before Superman took wing."
This proves what exactly? That someone mistranslated something and it gained acceptance.
My point was that "Ubermensch" isn't translated as "Superman". Again, so what if a playwrite did it and other's accepted his mistranslation? That doesn't make it correct.
That doesn't prove anything at all. The fact that one person got it wrong and other line up to follow only proves that those people are unaware of the correct translation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Look all you have to say is "Japan can sustain it's present population sustainably" and prove it then I will be wrong."
Even more sad. When it's demonstrated to you that you've mad a mistake, you reply by changing the subject.
Nowhere did I say anything about Japan sustaining anyhting. I never even alluded to it. So knock that stupid shit off.
You made a factually incorrect statement, then based your entire argument on it. I gave you proof you were wrong, there's far more available for you to find on your own, yet you continue to troll.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your childish attempts are?
"Sorry."
I'm sure your parents are too, but they're not responsible for the embarassment to them that you've become. No, that's all you and your pathetic attempts to save face after making a factually incorrect statement and then INSISTING you were right about it, despite all evidence being against you.
All YOU have to do is not change the subject, not try to change your argument, and prove that this statement
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not having to import every square inch of wood."
is correct. Until then, you're yet another slashtroll who thinks appearing right on a webboard is more important than actually knowing the facts. And I'm right.
Really, yours is the most unseemly and pathetic attempt at equivocation I've ever seen. One day, when you grow up, you'll see how ridiculous your statements are.
Until then, your a fucking troll. And the worst part for you? You know it's true, and you can't do anything about it.
And making an ill informed comment.
Read the thread, take a second to understand why it has nothing to do with what you posted, and then try again.
Hint: we were discussing literalism and the Consititution.
And do it every time he decides to derail a legitimate discussion by bringing up US politics.
He's the worst political troll on this site, and I'm happy I finally remembered to foe him.
Obscenity isn't speech. (I don't beleive that, just playing devil's advocate). You are beginning your argument with the idea that obscenity is speech, and is protected by the first. Where is that stated in the Constitution?
That being said, GP was correct in coming down on you a bit. It's a little silly to make an argument based on a literal reading of the Constitution.
"THere is no appreciable difference between "there are trees but we can't get to them" and "there are no trees""
How sad. Really, that's just embarassing for you.
Ok guy, I can see what you're about. You're one of those pricks who decides when he's proven wrong that he needs to spin it somehow. Guess what?
It's not ether of the things you try to say it is, it's actually
"We have tons of trees, we just value them enough that importing them from other places is cheaper"
More importantly, you didn't say either of those things in your original post, you said this
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not (sic) having to import every square inch of wood."
And that's a fucking lie. They didn't eat through ANY of their tree population, it's just cheaper to get it elsewhere. READ THAT. C-H-E-A-P-E-R. If they wanted to harvest their own lumber, it's perfectly possible, it's just more expensive.
You were wrong, then you followed up with something even more ridiculous. One more and you make the Slashdot troll hat-trick.
"It's just as easy to accidentally stuff crap into the wrong envelope and accidentally put the wrong address on it."
No actually, it isn't. I know of no way to easily send out hundreds of copies of a document at one time with traditional mail. It happens all the time with e-mail.
From wikipedia
"The nation's forest resources, although abundant, have not been well developed to sustain a large lumber industry. Of the 245,000 km of forests, 198000 km are classified as active forests."
245000/377835(area of japan)= around 65%.
I don't know why you think what you think, but I can't honestly say that having 65% of your land area covered by forests really supports the idea that
"Japan has eaten through it's tree population and is not having to import every square inch of wood."
In fact, that statement is just ridiculous.
The fact is that forests in Japan are hard to reach, so logging them is more expensive than importing from somewhere else.
So, my I ask you a serious question? Why would you post something that you hadn't researched? Any search at all would have given you the information I have.
"A sleepy idiot such as much self can read that sentence and think "umm, since when did the US Democratic party want to force ISPs to block violent and pornographic content if elected?"
c y_Act
i on_Act
Are you unaware of the CDA, and after that COPA?
Educate yourself. Keep in mind, both were signed by a Democratic president and given wide bi-partisan support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protect
Democrats do it too, don't delude yourself.
And please, don't respond with your assessment of congress at the time, many Democrats voted for these provisions as well, and Clinton didn't use his veto.
Why would you ask me that when you can look it up for yourself? I'm not being a jerk, I want to know.
Why do you think that asking me a question you can find an answer to is worthy of a response? Why can't you just look it up like I did?
GP made the assertion, it's up to him to support it. He stated that something was true, yet gave no evidence that the heroes of myth are equivalent to superheroes.
_ superheroes_in_comic_books
So why did you post to me looking for evidence? Did you do the same for the GP?
Read the Wiki. It explains it better than I could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero#History_of
But more than that, you should ask yourself why you only ask for evidence from people who disagree with you, instead of from everyone making assertions. That's your bias, and you should try to improve yourself by doing away with it.
It's called "Assumption of Risk".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk
"I know you're done, but I don't care. I'm responding anyway."
Right, because you don't listen. Despite the fact I stated I was done, you decided to rant anyway. YOU DON'T LISTEN. Which is really funny because then you say this
"I don't know why you're sticking on this silly point so much."
I'm not. YOU'RE the one replying to someone who finshed commenting on the topic a while ago.
Apart from insisting you're correct when you're wrong, you should also examine why you think it's ok to call someone out for something when you're doing it yourself.
And then maybe ask yourself if that same hypocrisy and bull headedness are present in other areas. Like the current subject, which you're wrong about, but continue to argue over.
"Yawn. So your hypothesis is that its illegitimate to use the prefix 'super' as a translation for the german prefix "uber"?"
No. My position, which is correct, is that there is NO NEED to change "Overman" to "Superman" because "Overman" fits perfectly.
What Shaw did is meaningless to me, as well as to the point. For someone apparently grounded in logic, you failed t=with the introduction (repeatedly) of that silly fallacy.
And all YOU'VE done is point to Shaw and repeat "nuh uh, he said...". I'm sure you're feeling very smug, but you've actually said nothing.
"Personally, I think you should move on to your next bit of schtick and tell us that JFK proclaimed he was a jelly doughnut."
WTF does this sentence mean? Why do you have to be such a snide prick?
So "Ubermensch" translated as "Overman" where "over" means "above, greater than, beyond, more gifted than" is LESS accurate than "Superman"?
Of course not, and yet you and others will continue to argue otherwise.
I'm done with this for good now.
You proved nothing, and demonstrated that you're a childish individual.
Your parents would be proud.
"In this case, the meaning of "Übermensch" would be the same as "superman"."
I agree. But that is the meaning not the translation. It would be translated as "Overman" with the definition of over in this case being "above or greater than, beyond".
It seems many many other people insist on trying to make the case that because it MEANS superman that it should translate as superman, but the use of "over" in the way I've demonstrated makes perfect sense.
Shaw got it wrong. I'm done with this silliness now.
"I seem to remember the Greeks writing tales of superheroes about 2 millennia before DC or Marvel "invented" the concept?"
No, that's wrong. You CHOOSE to believe this, but you're wrong. You honestly believe that you're the first to bring up this idea? You also honestly believe it hasn't been refuted?
The "heroes" you refer to don't fit the accepted definition of what a "superhero" is. You may not like that, but you didn't create the genre, so you don't get to define it.
"Patently, applying a term like "super hero" to fantastic heroic figures is almost devoid of any such novelty."
Correct, but that isn't what happened. You, and many like you, assume things that aren't true. The previous statement is one of those things.
The etymology of "super" isn't up for debate.
Nothing you've said does anything other than attempt to change the subject, which is, "Ubermensch" doesn't translate as "superman". It doesn't.
So again, what was your point?
"Get off it dude. You're wrong."
You know what, I'm tired of this. Show me.
"Or, how do you translate the following..."
Ok, so because you posted a few completely unrelated examples, you think this demonstrates what?
All of your examples are perfectly acceptable using my stated definition of what "over" meant in the case of "Ubermensch". Just because you like that the english version translates nicely, you leave out all the examples where it doesn't support your point. Sneaky that.
"and many more..."
Which matter exactly as much as your others. That is, none.
So, if you were trying to demonstrate something other than your inability to construct a coherent refutation, then you failed.
And with that, I'm finished correcting you and the others like you who accept the mistranslation.
Live in ignorance. I couldn't care less.
Is a synonym the same as the word itself?
Is "super" exactly the same word as "over" or just synonymous?
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
"If they filed the trademark decades ago, have they been enforcing it all along?"
Yes. Somewhat selectively, but yes.
"If so, then why is this news?"
It isn't. It's an attempt by a publicity whore to whore publicity.
Anything else?
So what?
"Except by George Bernard Shaw. Who rolled Nietzshe's concept into a play, Man and Superman, a decade before Superman took wing."
This proves what exactly? That someone mistranslated something and it gained acceptance.
My point was that "Ubermensch" isn't translated as "Superman". Again, so what if a playwrite did it and other's accepted his mistranslation? That doesn't make it correct.
That doesn't prove anything at all. The fact that one person got it wrong and other line up to follow only proves that those people are unaware of the correct translation.
What did you hope to demonstrate by your post?
That's before 1942 I think.
"Please, I have German Parents and am fluent in it"
Neither one of which prevents you from being wrong. You are.
Your statment that it "literally" translates was what I took issue with. It doesn't, and as a "fluent" speaker you should know that. I am, and I do.