DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 23, 2001 02:59:30 PM new
OutOfTheBlue, if I had an imagination I wouldn't have had to start this thread.
And I would argue that there can be life without oxygen, although with a significantly reduced lifespan.
Dr. Beetle
|
figmente
|
posted on September 23, 2001 03:01:04 PM new
Counterexample on the religion
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=116441
And I'm afraid that value for pi is inaccurate.
[ edited by figmente on Sep 23, 2001 03:03 PM ]
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 23, 2001 04:00:06 PM new
And I'm afraid that value for pi is inaccurate.
Of course. It was only a little more accurate than the first one. 
And I would argue that there can be life without oxygen, although with a significantly reduced lifespan.
NASA says :
"The second step deals with the ability of microorganisms to cope with the complex interplay of the parameters of space (e.g., vacuum, UV- and ionizing radiation, temperature extremes).......It is concluded that radiation-resistant microbes could survive a journey from one planet to another in our solar system if they are located inside a meteorite"
http://natoasi.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts/horneck_abs.html
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 23, 2001 04:51:24 PM new
Well, maybe you people are all planning on dying some day. Personally, I'm hoping they'll find a cure for death sometime during my lifetime....
If you want an unarguable topic or subject, all you need is a tautology [i.e., something that is true by definition or which merely restates itself].
For example:
"That which is unarguable cannot be argued"
Carry on.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 23, 2001 05:06:28 PM new
I'm pretty sure that thar pi=circ/diam thing only holds for Euclidian geometries.
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 23, 2001 05:06:54 PM new
Actually Barry a more accurate statement might be:
"That which is unarguable shouldn't be argued"
I think that the denizens of the RT are proving that even the in/unarguable can definitely be argued.
Dr. Beetle
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Sep 23, 2001 05:07 PM ]
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 23, 2001 05:53:22 PM new
"That which is unarguable shouldn't be argued"
Even "Over 90% of Humans are born with 10 fingers." isn't safe from that argument.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on September 23, 2001 06:01:30 PM new
gaffan, I'm considering the RT as flatland. 
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 23, 2001 06:34:05 PM new
"That which is unarguable shouldn't be argued"
No, because "should" implies a value judgment and not an absolute.
That which is unarguable cannot be argued. If you argue with it anyway, it wasn't really unarguable in the first place. Either that, or you're just an idiot....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 23, 2001 06:38:18 PM new
Either that, or you're just an idiot....
Or we missed our meds. 
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 23, 2001 07:10:11 PM new
All right, it's time for a vote:
1) It wasn't inarguable.
2) We're idiots.
I'm reserving my vote in case we need a tie breaker.
Dr. Beetle
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 23, 2001 07:18:08 PM new
All right, it's time for a vote:
No, it's not
|
snowyegret
|
posted on September 23, 2001 07:35:48 PM new
All of the above
None of the above
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on September 23, 2001 11:01:40 PM new
No, I'm not.
Yes, it is.
(I feel a Monty Python sketch coming... )
Isn't it time for ice cream yet?
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 23, 2001 11:50:17 PM new
Look, an argument is a series of logical propositions, linked to... no, no, no. Too silly...
Even "Over 90% of Humans are born with 10 fingers." isn't safe from that argument.
You betcha. 10 might not be decimal; if it's 10 octal, you'd be aruging that we're all born with 8 fingers.
Flatland? Never heard of it. Hey, what's that? it was a dot just a second ago, and now it's a circle, and it's getting bigger....
|
jt-2007
|
posted on September 24, 2001 02:26:22 AM new
Late arrival.
Enoch did not die. See Gen. 5:24.
Therefore it is possible, yet unlikely, that one of us could be spared death as well.
T
|
jt-2007
|
posted on September 24, 2001 02:29:42 AM new
How's this:
There is nothing new under the sun.
T
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 24, 2001 03:09:28 AM new
Given the implications of relativity theory with respect to the curvature of space, the use of the term "under" in describing the relative position of something with respect to the sun (or any other similar body) is inappropriate.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
jt-2007
|
posted on September 24, 2001 03:26:58 AM new
I can always count on you Gaffan.
T
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 24, 2001 06:32:51 AM new
There is nothing new under the sun
Define "under".
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 24, 2001 06:38:45 AM new
I can always count on you Gaffan.
Are you sure? What if you need a million bucks tommorow?
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 24, 2001 06:41:25 AM new
You betcha. 10 might not be decimal;
I need a ruling, did he disqualify my post, or not?
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:15:23 AM new
If you revise your statement to read:
"Over 90% of Humans are born with 10 (to the base 10) fingers."
Then I would argue that he couldn't argue, and thus you are still provisionally qualified.
However, I remember a debate long ago about whether the thumb is a finger. If the thumb is not a finger then your statement is disqualified.
Dr. Beetle
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:30:05 AM new
Here are a few contenders:
"There are two types of people in the world: those who devide people into two groups, and those who don't."
"This statement is false."
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:42:12 AM new
Then I would argue that he couldn't argue, and thus you are still provisionally qualified.
But the full statement also contained:
"That which is unarguable shouldn't be argued"
Even "Over 90% of Humans are born with 10 fingers." isn't safe from that argument.
Edited out a faulty arguement.
[ edited by Microbes on Sep 24, 2001 08:54 AM ]
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:43:44 AM new
Dang it, Barry, I was scrolling down the thread with the intent of posting the two types of people thing.
However, I'd still like to point out that as soon as everybody agrees it's true, it isn't anymore.
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 24, 2001 08:45 AM ]
re-edited to remove the edited comment in response to the comment which Microbes edited.
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 24, 2001 09:44 AM ]
|
zilvy
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:52:11 AM new
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 24, 2001 08:57:52 AM new
[/i]they count as people who don't divide people into two groups, I would think[/i]
Yeah, I caught that, and thought I got rid of it in time
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 24, 2001 09:47:33 AM new
No problem - I edited my comment about the comment you edited. We might be able to chase each other down this thread, editing references to the no longer present comments, well into the next decade...
BTW one inarugable, at least in my experience, is The 90/90 Rule: The first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% of the work takes the other 90% of the time...
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 24, 2001 09:51:06 AM new
Unless you are a procrastinator and never finish anything. In that case the first 90% of the work took 100% of the time
Dr. Beetle
|
