She's doing better then i thought she would. she's very close to the qf to match her result from last year. the player she's playing against isn't a great player. but she's a dirt baller like the spaniards on the mens side. this is good practice going into the next rd. well done so far....
No ne can deny that *you* think so. Don't confuse opinion with fact. I can easily deny that *I* think so -- because I don't. To me, she's a shrieking, unattractive woman with a father who should be either forced to sit outside the stands or made to watch with a gag on his mouth.
Better yet, both.
So much for the teaching of logic in the world....
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
No ne can deny that *you* think so. Don't confuse opinion> with fact. I can easily deny that *I* think so -- because I> don't. To me, she's a shrieking, unattractive woman with a> father who should be either forced to sit outside the stands> or made to watch with a gag on his mouth.
I wouldn't say she is unattractive. To me she is averagely good looking, but nothing special, and she looks far better from behind or from a distance than she does up-close. She is just a media-hyped poor substitute for Kournikova, and the shrieking is absurdly off-putting.
No ne can deny that *you* think so. Don't confuse opinion> > with fact. I can easily deny that *I* think so -- because I> > don't. To me, she's a shrieking, unattractive woman with a> > father who should be either forced to sit outside the stands> > or made to watch with a gag on his mouth.>
I wouldn't say she is unattractive. To me she is averagely good looking, but> nothing special, and she looks far better from behind or from a distance> than she does up-close. She is just a media-hyped poor substitute for> Kournikova, and the shrieking is absurdly off-putting.
I could live with this description. Note that "unattractive" is not "ugly." It is, or should be, a neutral word.
But the key is the logic: The original poster claimed that, because he (I assume) finds her attractive, we all must do so. This is flatly absurd. I don't find female warthogs attractive, but male warthogs do (to bring in a little Flanders & Swann). And male warthogs don't find Sharapova attractive.
Of all the things that happen if/when we meet aliens (and I don't think it's particularly likely that we will, given the lightspeed limit, but *if*), the most interesting will be to see their reaction to our art. I don't have any idea what their reaction will be -- but I think it fairly safe to predict that it will *not* be what we expect.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
You guys are something. you call her average? let me fill you in on some sad reality. a lot of girls need makeup to look good. Sharapova looks hot without any. sorry try again
I'll be fascinated to know how one eats art songs. >
Sound is vibration; vibration is energy; energy *can* be food, for an> organism with the capacity to use kinetic energy for sustenance. Though I> suspect they'll be partial to Wagner, DeathMetal and John Philip Sousa. Art> songs... maybe a little Schubert as an amuse gueule.
I don't think such a life form would survive. They'd be too likely to blow up their planet because the explosion would have such a nice creamy high-calorie texture.
In any case, while they might consume the sound moving in their own direction, what about the sound going the other way? It's hardly eating it if everyone else still gets to hear the sound. Might as well just be standing around blocking it....
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:25:38 -0400, only human wrote:
You guys are something. you call her average? let me fill you in on some> sad reality. a lot of girls need makeup to look good. Sharapova looks hot> without any. sorry try again
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn-4C742A.17385829052005@europe.isp.giganews.com...> "Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote:>
[ ... ]>
I'll be fascinated to know how one eats art songs. > >
Sound is vibration; vibration is energy; energy *can* be food, for an> > organism with the capacity to use kinetic energy for sustenance. Though
suspect they'll be partial to Wagner, DeathMetal and John Philip Sousa.
songs... maybe a little Schubert as an amuse gueule.>
I don't think such a life form would survive. They'd be too> likely to blow up their planet because the explosion would> have such a nice creamy high-calorie texture. >
In any case, while they might consume the sound moving in> their own direction, what about the sound going the other> way? It's hardly eating it if everyone else still gets to> hear the sound. Might as well just be standing around> blocking it....
On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:59:01 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:> "Erich" <spoing@spammadoomylaaaa.uit> wrote:>
She is such a honey - noone can deny it.> > >
No ne can deny that *you* think so. Don't confuse opinion> > > with fact. I can easily deny that *I* think so -- because I> > > don't. To me, she's a shrieking, unattractive woman with a> > > father who should be either forced to sit outside the stands> > > or made to watch with a gag on his mouth.> >
I wouldn't say she is unattractive. To me she is averagely good looking, but> > nothing special, and she looks far better from behind or from a distance> > than she does up-close. She is just a media-hyped poor substitute for> > Kournikova, and the shrieking is absurdly off-putting.>
I could live with this description. Note that "unattractive" is> not "ugly." It is, or should be, a neutral word.>
But the key is the logic: The original poster claimed that,> because he (I assume) finds her attractive, we all must do> so. This is flatly absurd. I don't find female warthogs> attractive, but male warthogs do (to bring in a little> Flanders & Swann). And male warthogs don't find Sharapova> attractive. >
Of all the things that happen if/when we meet aliens (and I> don't think it's particularly likely that we will, given the> lightspeed limit, but *if*), the most interesting will be to> see their reaction to our art. I don't have any idea what> their reaction will be -- but I think it fairly safe to> predict that it will *not* be what we expect.>
-- > When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot,> when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High,> when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it?> -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Jeez..pull your claws in mate, your bitchiness is showing. As to her being a poor Kournikova clone I beg to differ - at least as far as the win/loss ratio. Kournikova, even on her best day, would be hard pressed to push Sharapova let alone beat her.. Macca
Jeez..pull your claws in mate, your bitchiness is showing.
Yes, it is.
If the original poster had said, "I think Maria Sharapova is the most beautiful human being in the history of the world," well, I disagree strongly, but it's a matter of opinion -- and I wouldn't have posted.
When the poster says that all of us must agree, the poster is showing the extreme folly of thinking that *his* opinions, because they are his, are universal. If that were actually true, then we wouldn't need elections -- we could appoint the original poster God and have done. *That*, not the praise of Sharapova, is what irritated me. I gave my reaction to Sharapova simply to show how different opinions can be.
But I will not back down if you want me to believe that I must like Sharapova because you, or the original poster, have your thinking distorted by her alleged beauty.
BTW -- note that I wasn't the one to bring up Kournikova, who is irrelevant to the discussion. For that matter, Sharapova is irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that the original poster can't tell fact (e.g. the law of conservation of mass/energy) from opinion.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Jeez..pull your claws in mate, your bitchiness is showing.>
Yes, it is.>
If the original poster had said, "I think Maria Sharapova is the> most beautiful human being in the history of the world," well,> I disagree strongly, but it's a matter of opinion -- and I> wouldn't have posted.
But all he said was "She is such a honey - noone can deny it."
If it's all about taste & opinion, this is true. You can't prove or deny one's beauty. Right? Because the negation of global "She is such a honey." would be (in the language context) global "She's NOT that sweet."
But all he said was "She is such a honey - noone can deny it.">
If it's all about taste & opinion, this is true.
No, if it's all about opinion, then *anyone* can deny it, and it's false.
You can't prove or deny one's beauty. Right?
Agreed. My premise.
Because the negation of global "She is such a honey." would be (in the > language context) global "She's NOT that sweet."
I disagree; as I interpret the (imprecise) language, the negation is that she's such a "not-honey." Which, given my understanding of "honey" as applied to women, has to do with looks and behavior, and I certainly can deny that she meets either part of *my* definition of a honey. Mostly what she's doing is souring me on Canon equipment -- it won't cost them a camera sale, since I'm not shopping for one, but it may well cost them a printer sale.
('global' being free of one's opinion)
Well -- does "global" mean "universal" or "covering all of earth"? We've already discussed extra-solar possibilities.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
But all he said was "She is such a honey - noone can deny it.">>
If it's all about taste & opinion, this is true. >
No, if it's all about opinion, then *anyone* can deny it, and> it's false.
If anyone can deny "She is such a honey", then also anyone can prove it, so the statement must be TRUE and FALSE (globally at the same time.. Since that is not possible, we must refrain from assigning it a (true, false) value, and must call it some kind of a NIL.
Thus: "Jupiter is bigger than Moon" - TRUE "2>4" - FALSE "Maria Sharapova is such a honey" - NIL, not false, not true
and the guy gets the point, you can't deny a "NIL" statement
"bue" <ibuco.maj@moon.public.srce.hr> wrote in message news:d7fvfq$r3a$1@ss405.t-com.hr...>
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote>
But all he said was "She is such a honey - noone can deny it."> >>
If it's all about taste & opinion, this is true. > >
No, if it's all about opinion, then *anyone* can deny it, and> > it's false. >
If anyone can deny "She is such a honey", then also anyone can prove it,
the statement must be TRUE and FALSE (globally at the same time..> Since that is not possible, we must refrain from assigning it a (true,> false) value, and must call it some kind of a NIL.>
Thus:> "Jupiter is bigger than Moon" - TRUE> "2>4" - FALSE> "Maria Sharapova is such a honey" - NIL, not false, not true>
and the guy gets the point, you can't deny a "NIL" statement>
Jaybus, you don't really grasp logic, do you? Let me spell it out: "She is a honey, no one can deny that" equals "Everyone does not deny she is a honey"; if *anyone* can state "I do not think she is a honey", which equals "I deny she is a honey" , then the original statement is automatically false, because it required universal agreement.
Jaybus, you don't really grasp logic, do you? Let me spell it out: "She is > a> honey, no one can deny that" equals "Everyone does not deny she is a > honey";
wrong. "She is a honey, no one DENIES that" equals "Everyone does not deny she is a honey".
The same thing as: "Everybody can visit China." differs from: "Everybody visits China."
I disagree; as I interpret the (imprecise) language, the negation> > is that she's such a "not-honey.">
?> What's the negation of "He is taller than 200 centimeters"?>
"He's not taller than 200 centimeters"?> or> "He's shorter than 160 cm"??!?
?
Now I don't understand your comparison. Obviously the former is the negation. But "200 centimetres" and "taller" are precise terms.
But the negation of "no on can deny that" is "someone can deny that." I can deny that Sharapova is a honey. Because, as far as I'm concerned, she isn't.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Thus:> "Jupiter is bigger than Moon" - TRUE> "2>4" - FALSE> "Maria Sharapova is such a honey" - NIL, not false, not true>
and the guy gets the point, you can't deny a "NIL" statement>
Yes, but this is not the point at issue. The description of Sharapova as "a honey" is a matter of taste. But the issue is whether the statement is deniable. I can deny it. My opinion that Sharapova is not a honey is no more correct than the original poster's claim that she is. But my claim that I can deny it *is* correct, and refutes the statement that the poster can deny it.
The two parts must be kept separate, because they have absolutely no logical connection. I merely disagree with the first part, which is, as you say, neither true nor false. The second part, however, is a testable statement which can be, AND HAS BEEN, falsified.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Yes, but this is not the point at issue. The description of> Sharapova as "a honey" is a matter of taste. But the issue> is whether the statement is deniable. I can deny it.
For me: It cannot be denied if it has a logical value of NIL. To deny it, is to prove it FALSE, isn't it? But as a matter of taste, "Sharapova is a honey" has to be NIL. Thus, undeniable.
"bue" <ibuco.maj@moon.public.srce.hr> wrote in message news:d7g49b$64g$1@ss405.t-com.hr...>
"Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote>
Jaybus, you don't really grasp logic, do you? Let me spell it out: "She
honey, no one can deny that" equals "Everyone does not deny she is a> > honey";>
wrong.> "She is a honey, no one DENIES that" equals "Everyone does not deny she is
honey".
No. Or rather, yes, but that's an ambiguous sentence that you are interpreting incorrectly. An equivalent would be "No one can deny that she is a honey", which just switches the clauses, so maybe you can grasp *that*. It's negation is "Someone can deny that she is a honey". You get to that from [not(no one can deny that she is a honey)], which is [not not(one can deny that she is a honey)] which is (one can deny she is a honey), which, in better English, gives us (someone can deny she is a honey).
If you don't get that, I suggest _Introduction to Symbolic Logic_, by Coppi.
The same thing as:> "Everybody can visit China."> differs from:> "Everybody visits China."
Yes. And neither of them has any more to do with the initial proposition than the other unrelated example you came up with.
No. Or rather, yes, but that's an ambiguous sentence that you are> interpreting incorrectly. An equivalent would be "No one can deny that she> is a honey", which just switches the clauses, so maybe you can grasp > *that*.> It's negation is "Someone can deny that she is a honey". You get to that> from [not(no one can deny that she is a honey)], which is [not not(one can> deny that she is a honey)] which is (one can deny she is a honey), which, > in> better English, gives us (someone can deny she is a honey).
This is understood. And the geeky proof was totally unneccessary. Now, take into account that I consider "can" as "have the right to" in whole discussion.
So "someone *can deny* she is a honey" is FALSE, because no one *has the right to deny* (or confirm) it. "She is a honey" has a value of NIL, so it cannot be proved TRUE or FALSE (=denied).
And, because it is a negation of "No one can deny that she is a honey", that means that the latter is TRUE, and these are exactly the author's words. It means the author wrote a TRUE statement (was right), so there was no need for Robert to react.
Yes, but this is not the point at issue. The description of> > Sharapova as "a honey" is a matter of taste. But the issue> > is whether the statement is deniable. I can deny it.>
For me:> It cannot be denied if it has a logical value of NIL.> To deny it, is to prove it FALSE, isn't it?> But as a matter of taste, "Sharapova is a honey" has to be NIL.> Thus, undeniable.
But also unassertable.
By this line of reasoning, the original claim was never made.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
"bue" <ibuco.maj@moon.public.srce.hr> wrote in message news:d7gakr$d5i$1@ss405.t-com.hr...>
"Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote> >
No. Or rather, yes, but that's an ambiguous sentence that you are> > interpreting incorrectly. An equivalent would be "No one can deny that
is a honey", which just switches the clauses, so maybe you can grasp> > *that*.> > It's negation is "Someone can deny that she is a honey". You get to that> > from [not(no one can deny that she is a honey)], which is [not not(one
deny that she is a honey)] which is (one can deny she is a honey),
which,> > in> > better English, gives us (someone can deny she is a honey).>
This is understood.> And the geeky proof was totally unneccessary.> Now, take into account that I consider "can" as "have the right to" in
whole> discussion.>
So "someone *can deny* she is a honey" is FALSE, because no one *has the> right to deny* (or confirm) it.> "She is a honey" has a value of NIL, so it cannot be proved TRUE or FALSE> (=denied).>
And, because it is a negation of "No one can deny that she is a honey",
that> means that the latter is TRUE, and these are exactly the author's words.> It means the author wrote a TRUE statement (was right), so there was no need> for Robert to react.
Okay. If you want to claim the original statement was nonsensical, I see no problem with it. Must say it was a seriously abstruse joke, though.
