OK

No Man wrote:

>Whirlygig logic. There is no conflict between contradiction and paradox.

Addendum: If you don't believe me, you might believe Wikipedia.

| The statement "I always lie" is often considered to be a version of the
| liar paradox, but is not actually paradoxical. It could be the case that
| the statement itself is a lie, because the speaker sometimes tells the
| truth, and this interpretation does not lead to a contradiction. The
| belief that this is a paradox results from a false dichotomy - that either
| the speaker always lies, or always tells the truth - when it is possible
| that the speaker occasionally does both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#Not_a_paradox

| If one defines "liar" as someone who is never truthful, then the statement
| "All Cretans are liars," if uttered by a Cretan, Epimenides, cannot be
| consistently true.
|
| Several interpretations and analyses are available, if the statement is
| considered false. It might be contended that the truth-value "false" can
| be consistently assigned to the simple proposition that "All Cretans are
| liars," so that this statement by itself, when deemed false, is not,
| strictly speaking, paradoxical. Thus, if there ever existed a Cretan (not
| Epimenides in this instance) who even once spoke the truth, the categorical
| statement "All Cretans are (always) liars," would be false, and Epimenides
| might be simply regarded as having made a false statement himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox


Manfred
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Calvin wrote:

>You cut out what I said in order to accuse me of not knowing
>that

I cut it out because it's usual in Usenet to trim the quote. May I
recommend you a look at the netiquette:
| If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
| summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
| enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
| readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
| NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings
| from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a
| message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone.
| But do not include the entire original!
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3

>WHAT KIND OF A PERSON ARE YOU?

I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
'Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent-
That is my own, real element.

In other words: I'm just a quite ordinary extraterrestrian. Gort! Klaatu
barada nikto!

>Am I going mad?

Yes. We have chosen you for our brain-ray experiments, and we are
expecting final results soon. But don't be worried! As an indemnity
you will be exhibited in our intergalactic museum.


Manfred
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

My G_D, don't you people ever give up? And that question is to both sides
of this childish argument.
I wonder if the New Movies group talks about movies?

Wull

"No Man" <woesong.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ffrc8o02hfn@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Manfred Polak wrote:
>> Calvin wrote:
>
>>>BUT the statement, *All* my statements are false,
>>>is included in *All*, ie. *This* statement (also) is false.
>>
>>
>> And that's the reason why the statement "All my statements
>> are false" is false.
>
> If it's false, then it's true.
>
>
>
> --
> '... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
> have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Wull wrote:

>My G_D, don't you people ever give up?

I give up, surrender, capitulate and hoist the white flag.

>I wonder if the New Movies group talks about movies?

Hey, I referenced 2 old movies ("Faust" and "The Day the Earth
Stood Still") in my last posting, and I suggested an idea for a
new one (you remember, the brain rays - the plot is similar to
"Plan 9 from Outer Space"). What do you want more?

Manfred
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Calvin <crice5.RemoveThis@windstream.net> writes:
>On Oct 24, 12:32 pm, schu....RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>> his pseudonym in his .sig file. Which, FWIW, proves that he's not as
>> clever as he thinks he is -- if he were that clever, he would have assumed
>> that any Westerner who had a reasonable education would have realized where
>> he got his pseudonym without needing any help.

>I had seen his allusion to The Odyssey, but I have been conditioned
>not to make anything out of quotations in people's sigs.

Many of us have newsreaders that edit out .sigs. Even though No Man has
posted here for years, I have never seen his .sig. Damn my unreasonable
education!
And now back to your regularly scheduled poo-flinging.

Stacia

--
Visit my blog at http://www.shebloggedbynight.com
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

> :> Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we
> :> purchase a VHS?
> :
> : Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.
>
> Are VHS tapes not covered by "fair use"? And if you're not copying them
> for anyone else's use, who's to know? If you keep the curtains closed,
> the guys in the black helicopters will have no way of knowing whether
> you're watching from a VHS tape, a DVD, or are listening to the audio
> portion after your TV's picture tube blew up.

Yes, but what if they're searching your place for drugs, and they
find a stash of home-copied tapes? If there's enough of them you
might get charged with a possession for sale.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

In article <1193239150.982185.245310 DeleteThis @e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Calvin <crice5 DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 10:40 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R... DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <1193146403.455826.128... DeleteThis @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > No fallacy, because I left out the part that I thought everyone
> > > would assume: If there's an obvious market for something
> > > and it isn't sold, especially in this country dominated by
> > > evil capitalists, then it must be illegal to sell it. If it was
> > > legal to sell it to the ordinary 'consumer', it would be sold
> > > at Wal-Mart.
> > Well, lets see . . . how many ways is that statement wrong?
> > First, Wal-Mart doesn't sell everything they can. They heavily censor
> > their CD selection, for instance, which is fine; nobody with a brick and
> > mortar store is going to sell every CD that comes out. You probably
> > aren't going to find any kind of specialty item there.
> > And of course "this country dominated by evil capitalists" is just
> > bullshit.
> > And when you assumed up there, you made an 'ass' out of 'you' although
> > not, in this case, me.
> > I can think of all sorts of reasons stuff that's legal isn't sold. A
> > big one would be that it's just too expensive to start up. Or you can't
> > convince somebody upstream they should bother. Or you don't have the
> > clout to push something else off the shelves -- stores don't have empty
> > shelves, just waiting for the next big thing. They're full up, and to
> > add your product, something has to go.
> >
> > So, okay, every part of that statement was wrong.
>
> Except that ""this country dominated by evil capitalists" was
> sarcasm. I worship capitalism, and capitalists in general.

My apologies then. I'm surrounded by people that say stuff like that
every day, and mean it.

--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

David Oberman wrote:
> No Man <woesong.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I want out of this. Hey, I saw a movie once! Where do I go to talk about
>>that?
>
>
> I get bored talking about so many movies. I like when we talk about
> other things. Naturally, we need a suitable balance: say, 70% movies &
> 30% other things (like poo-flinging). And certainly no one is ever
> prevented from saying something about movies; but I empathize to a
> degree with those who want to see posts only about movies, given the
> fact it's a movie group.


It's an eternal conflict among great minds. Talk shows are as in all
matters the best gauge of human capability. Brando came on Dick Cavett
to talk about injuns, but Cavett made him go through the gossip list;
"Is it true you and [someone] carried a bucket of bull droppings up to
your loft above Broadway and happily tossed it onto the street 43 floors
below?" And "Truman Kaput says he's a genius, and part of his evidence
is the interview he did with you in which he used no notes, only `total
recall.' This is true?"

Brando wouldn't comment. Just sat there smug and slouching. Then, like
in pioneer cabins, when they cut back from a commercial the set was full
of injuns.

More recently I saw on Youtube the interview one Paris Hilton did with
Letterman. She wanted to talk about "her" new fragrance and the movie
she is now shooting; he wanted to discuss her jail time.

What I mean is, it's hard even for the pros to hold stars on task.


--
'... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

David Oberman wrote:

> Wull, can you think of a past film with a great sophistic/pedantic
> sort of argument in it? How about the number "Anything You Can Do"
> with Betty Hutton & Howard Keel in "Annie, Get Your Gun"?

Well, there is the Welles/Mankiewicz conflict in any collaborative work
of how to split the credit.

Kristine: Those who have seen your face
Draw back in fear;
I am the mask you wear ...
Phantom: It's me they hear

And then the cultural relevance dichotomy; how diction plays out in
pairings.

You say either and I say either,
You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither
Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off
- Gershwin, from "Shall We Dance?"

--
'... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

David Oberman wrote:

>Wull, can you think of a past film with a great sophistic/pedantic
>sort of argument in it?

There is the crew and the bomb in "Dark Star".

Manfred
 >> Stay informed about: OK