What's the Difference between a Lawyer and a Liar?

[Mike Vandeman]

On 21 May 2007 03:36:02 -0700, pmh <[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 21, 12:36 am, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> My God, is there no end to it?
>>
>> First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
>> true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
>> in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
>> discovered instance.
>>
>> Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
>> equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
>> function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
>> shore up your ridiculous arguments?
>
>Bo, there IS no end to it; a simple Google will demonstrate the
>unwavering consistency of Mikey's monomaniacle nuroses for 15 years at
>the very least. You are attempting rational discourse with an
>irrational being.

You are ASSUMING that he is rational, when in fact, he is nothing of
the sort. You are just like him -- like an abused dog that barks at
anything that moves, for no reason.

>PH
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Bruce Jensen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2
>>
>> >No, it isn't.
>>
>> It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
>> words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
>> "generalization". DUH!
>
> My God, is there no end to it?
>
> First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
> true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
> in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
> discovered instance.
>
> Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
> equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
> function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
> shore up your ridiculous arguments?
>

Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is
never defined in a manner which most people use it.

PS
Mike, that is a generalization, E=mc2 is not a generalization.

Bank robbers drive cars, therefore all car drivers are bank robbers is an
invalid "generalization" that you frequently make relative to mountain bike
riders, but never make relative to other kinds of visitors to public lands.
Another generalization that does not hold true is, all PhDs are idiots.





> Thank God you didn't go into physics or mathematics, which require
> some level of discipline and precision - psychology, with all of its
> hedging, rash generalizations and screwy malapropisms is the *perfect*
> place for you. Please stay there.
>

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 20 May 2007 21:36:35 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2
>>>
>>> >No, it isn't.
>>>
>>> It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
>>> words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
>>> "generalization". DUH!
>>
>>My God, is there no end to it?
>>
>>First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
>>true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
>>in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
>>discovered instance.
>
> Which makes it generally true. An expert in the English language, you
> are NOT. You are using the wrong meaning of "general".
>

An expert in the english language OR in science, clearly you are not.

A generalization is generally true, e=mc2 is precisely true all of the time
under all conditions. E never equals mc3 or mc, it equals only mc2. If one
alters any one of energy, mass , or speed, then the remaining components
will automatically change to make E=mc2, which makes E=mc2 a precision
statement, not a generalization.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:59:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bruce Jensen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2
>>>
>>> >No, it isn't.
>>>
>>> It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
>>> words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
>>> "generalization". DUH!
>>
>> My God, is there no end to it?
>>
>> First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
>> true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
>> in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
>> discovered instance.
>>
>> Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
>> equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
>> function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
>> shore up your ridiculous arguments?
>>
>
>Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is
>never defined in a manner which most people use it.

On top of everything else, I also have to teach you ENGLISH? Just
because you are too lazy to look in a dictionary? "a general
statement, law, principle, or proposition". QED Idiot.

>PS
>Mike, that is a generalization, E=mc2 is not a generalization.
>
>Bank robbers drive cars, therefore all car drivers are bank robbers is an
>invalid "generalization" that you frequently make relative to mountain bike
>riders, but never make relative to other kinds of visitors to public lands.
>Another generalization that does not hold true is, all PhDs are idiots.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Thank God you didn't go into physics or mathematics, which require
>> some level of discipline and precision - psychology, with all of its
>> hedging, rash generalizations and screwy malapropisms is the *perfect*
>> place for you. Please stay there.
>>
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:59:13 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bruce Jensen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On May 20, 7:30 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 18 May 2007 10:08:33 -0700, Bruce Jensen <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On May 18, 8:32 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Here's a generalization for you: E=mc**2
>>>>
>>>> >No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> It's a generalization, idiot. E depends on m, which can VARY. In other
>>>> words, it is GENERALLY true of all matter. That's cxalled a
>>>> "generalization". DUH!
>>>
>>> My God, is there no end to it?
>>>
>>> First off, it is not GENERALLY true of all matter - it is PRECISELY
>>> true of all matter. "Generally" implies that there is some instance
>>> in which it does not apply - and for this case, there is no such
>>> discovered instance.
>>>
>>> Second, the word for which you vainly search that applies to this
>>> equation is "function," not generalization. Specifically, E is a
>>> function of m. Must you misdefine and invent *everything* to try to
>>> shore up your ridiculous arguments?
>>>
>>
>>Welcome the Vandeman New World Dictionary, where the meaning of a word is
>>never defined in a manner which most people use it.
>
> On top of everything else, I also have to teach you ENGLISH? Just
> because you are too lazy to look in a dictionary? "a general
> statement, law, principle, or proposition". QED Idiot.
>


But Michael, your (that's YOUR) example is E=mc2. There is nothing, that's
N-O-T-H-I-N-G, general about E=mc2.