Unusual Distractions

writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

There is a big difference between personal comments and common
knowledge. Common Knowledge: you live in Paris. Common knowledge: your
knowledge of aviation and flying is as limited as a prostitute's
knowledge of quantum physics.

What correlation is there between prostitution and knowledge of quantum
physics?

Must everything be explained in idiotproof terms to you? Once
again, I digress.

I am describing in various terms, the knowledge and expertise
of aviation and flying of every person in this newsgroup compared to
your lack of.

Like trying to make you see reason; it's easier to applaud with
one hand.

You said it yourself, that you have no
interest in dealing with the opposite sex and would rather sit at your
simulator all day/night long.

Sounds good to me.

I would pity you, but I actually feel a lot happier for the
women in your area, for it would be the first time the female gender
would have to deal with the male being frigid (no offense, ladies!).

I just pointed out the irony of that with the city of Paris.

Paris is not a bordello.

Never has been, nor ever will. But Paris is the City of Lights
and the City of Love. how ironic that someone so devoid of that and
affections towards the opposite sex would live in such a city.

I have a life, including a significant other.

I have a life, also, but it excludes a significant other.

See above and above that.

While I may not
have as much experience as others here, I do possess a steady
knowledge of aviation and flying; not as much as those who do it here
for a living, but enough for them to realize that I am learning, and
not assuming that anything simulated is real.

In other words, you're not a pilot, but you salivate when a pilot rings a
bell, so that's okay.

I never said I was; I did say that I am taking the classes to
become one and get my ticket.

Bottom line: you want respect with this group of people who
have the experience you keep blasting and claim that their experience
is wrong, you have to earn it.

I don't care about respect, only information. I don't blast people; those who
might arguably be worthy of blasting usually do enough damage to themselves,
anyway.

Yet you argue that information and say that it is wrong, yet it
is coming from someone who has the fruit on the tree and is telling you
the information you want. How many times must you refuse to walk in the
footsteps of someone who has been through the mine field to make it
through that field to safety?

I seriously doubt that Jay, Ron, Tina, Newps, and others here
would say that after they tell you what you want, and you tell them
it's wrong, that they would agree with you that it is wrong, when you
haven't stepped foot in the left seat of any aircraft to prove your
claim as right or valid. And since you say you never will, all your
rants and whinges about things here are like you; have no credibility
or weight to stand on.

But once again, I digress..

Yes, once again. It would be nice if you would limit yourself to the topic at
hand, however much I fascinate or intimidate you personally.

I have. But as you keep bringing it to yourself and taking this
offtopic, practice what you preach.

Me fascinated or intimidated by you? If anything the only thing
you could possibly have of mine, is my pity, and like respect, it is
earned, not bestowed.

BL.

P.S. How's that flight to Tuweep coming along?
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlws5yBkZmuMZ8L8RAtdPAJsH0koBhYFvZbgnJcuYXD em3CwDEwCeJHBv
183VG0ZIzA3EXl3M/RpTfNw=
=gu6d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.

So let's run this up the flagpole:

1. Nothing is better than sex.
2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
3. Masturbation is better than sex.

Pour toi, c'est vrai?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlwugyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsdEAKCxZDDVuqUq1D/hI7pCgDj6gd/qzACeNw+O
3GcIUermXyBL6mwm2aCxq+w=
=LeJf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
news:BYDli.6336

So let's run this up the flagpole:

1. Nothing is better than sex.
2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
3. Masturbation is better than sex.

Pour toi, c'est vrai?

If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace sex
with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
etc...) and still be on target.

"El Maximo" wrote

If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace
sex
with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
etc...) and still be on target.


I suspect it's a voluntary program to help save France from having to go
through the formality of enacting a law that forbids him to reproduce.

BDS

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.


No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack). Hence my
parenthetical about the conclusion. Of course you knew that, since you are
a teacher of English, are supposedly fluent in the English language and have
basic reading comprehenshion skills.

For your edification (not like you'd understand this but...):
Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.
Probably the most common form of inductive reasoning is a spam blocker,
which infers new item categorization based upon previously observed
categorizations (which is why spam blockers get more accurate as the user
categorizes more items; the increase in sample size allows more
specificity). You will also commonly hear this (the spam blocker, not
inductive reasoning) called a "Bayesian Classifier". Inductive arguments
are often referred to as "probabilistic."

Deductive reasoning infers its conclusions from the premises. Boolean
algebra, also symbolic logic, are forms of deductive reasoning. The
conclusions logically follow from the premises. A deductive argument is
valid if it follows the syllogistic rules (my argument above is not even a
valid argument due to the fallacy of undistributed middle). An argument may
be valid even if the premises are not true. A deductive argument is sound
if the argument is valid and the premises are also true.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Clueless.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, real human beings.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"DougS" wrote in message
...

So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in order to
sound intelligent?

No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack).

Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).


By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Notwithstanding the hasty generalization regarding the reasons for
consumption, ethanol is a CNS depressant, not a "mind altering drug."


Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, we all know (now) that you avoid naked women.