Re: chinese food and illegal immigration


"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ki0l05lrt26fmgj6dfqpj6t8n2ec5t5gvu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 13 May 2009 03:51:26 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:l2sj05tb4q03sd8701f96rumtmb3u34d2b@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:16:25 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


A lot of people give their first name on the internet. That's
their
real
name.

So, according to you, "Seth Jackson" is not my real name. This
is
the kind of brilliance we've come to expect from Beldingbat.

No, *** for brains.

If you gave your name as "Seth", you'd be giving your real name.
There are people who do that.

By using the plural, I'm making it clear I gave my complete name.
Now I realize you're an idiot. And I realize you'll never admit that
it
gives more information, and saves keystrokes over "complete name" or
"Full
name" So I fully expect you to keep banging away at a point you
simply
didn't understand, and that's fine.

Except that I understand the point perfectly.

Of course you don't.

It's my words.

So? It's my point.
Your point is only valid if my point wasn't. Since mine is, yours isn't.

But mine is, so yours isn't. <repeat to infinity>
No, idiot boy.
My point can be factually verified.
Yours can't.

You don't even know what my point is. But then again, ignorance has
never stopped you from espousing your opinions with your typical
stident air of certainty.
You mean your point isn't that what I said, or more specifically that using
"real names" didn't make sense in the context of my sentence?
Are you claiming you meant something else by that? Because if there's some
other possible meaning there, prey enlighten me.



Can we stop this silliness now?

I'm making statements of fact; you're countering with an ill-defined
opinion.
Yeah, you can stop being silly any time.

I've been waiting for you to go first.
I don't waste my time on silly.
Ribald humor, sure.
Not silly.



You are, after all, a goddamn hillbilly.

Am I? Are you sure about that?
No, of course not. Based on the evidence, it's highly likely.

Further proof of your inability to understand and analyze evidence.
You have an uncanny knack for getting things wrong.

You write country music. And Hell, you LIKE it.
You've resided in Nashville.
That's evidence. Not as compelling as, say, you marrying your sister or
something, but it's evidence.

(YEAH, that's a joke)

Wrong again. I've never resided in Nashville. For someone as
precise as you claim to be, it's hard to imagine where you got that
idea. Secondly, even if I did reside in Nashville, that would hardly
be evidence of being a hillbilly. Of course, someone like you who
knows nothing about Nashville and the music industry might believe it
to be evidence, but that would just be yet one more to toss into the
pile of your mistaken assumptions.
Your website mentioned Nashville.

Finally, a correct statement from Beldin! Thank you. It's been a
long time coming.
No, *** for brains. My statements are generally correct.
Not 100%, one always runs into unverifiable and misinformation out there.


Unfortunately, your conclusion was wrong, as usual, but it's perfectly
understandable in this particular case.
No, shithead, my conclusions tend to run quite correct.
But then, your logic tends to suck, so you don't understand the process.


. Of course, there will be more whackjobs when there are
more users. You're implying that the number of whackjobs rose
disproportionately with the number of users. You've provided no
evidence for that whatsoever, nor do I expect that you'll be able to
provide it.
Sure I can.
Early on, there were nearly 0 whackjob incidents.
Now, there are so many, there are police squads assigned to look for
whackos.

No comment here from the obvious point that growth in crimes against people
met on the internet has exploded.


As the learning
curve dropped, and access widened, the whack-job crime level increased.

Which in no way proves your theory that computer geeks are more stable
than the rest of the world.
That's not the theory.
But the fact that you're a *** for brains means you don't GET the theory.

But you flat out stated it. The good news is that you're sensibly
backpedaling from your silly claim. The bad news is that you won't
admit it.
No, shithead.
I didn't state it. You incorrectly interpreted my statement as such.
But ***, man, why admit you're too stupid to see the actual point NOW?


Christ, Seth, you're a shithead..
The numbers show that there were fewer incidents then. As in, nearly none.

All it shows is what anyone would expect
- the more users, the more of each type of user, including whackjobs.
No, you fucking moron.
Small initial population. Small number of cases. Population rises slowly,
cases rise faster.
Why?
1) Publicity. After the first few cases, people begin talking about it.
Makes whack jobs more aware of usenet.
2) Lack of geographic relevence. 100 whackjobs in a field of 1,000,000
users
is less dangerous than 10,000 whackjobs in a field of 100,000,000. All
10,000 can search the entire usenet database. It's not a population ratio
concern.
3) Attraction : Simply the knowledge that it's a useful stalking ground
makes usenet an attractor to whackjobs, and will artificially increase the
ratio, as a whackjob is more likely than a non-whackjob to enter the
usenet
population. People don't arrive on usenet via random number generator.

You know, Beldin, I knew that if I hung with you long enough, you'd
eventually make a valid point about something or other.
I've made any number of them.
You just enjoy scuffling.

Congratulations, you've done it! And, as always, when it's pointed
out to me that I've made a mistake, I'm the first to admit my error.






Christ, you ARE a fucking moron, Seth.

Since my IQ is higher than yours, this implies that your
intelligence
is on a par with, oh, a serving of vegetable dumplings.


No, actually, I strongly suspect it isn't.

You can suspect whatever you want, but your suspicions have no
relevance to reality.
Sure it does.

Not in the slightest. You have zero idea of the reality. None.
I have evidence as to reality.
Your total lack of support of your claim.
That downgrades its likelihood of being true.

That's the difference between you and me. You claimed an IQ of 136.
I tend to take you at your word even though you repeatedly demonstrate
poor reasoning skills.

No, you demonstrate poor logical skills, as the above shows clearly.

It shows nothing of the sort, not that I expect you to understand why.

You made unstated assumptions that happened not to be true.
It's a common flaw. The fact is, most people don't do logic well. The sad
fact is, the vast overwhelming majority of people don't make decisions
through rational sifting of the evidence, they make them on some 'gut level'
and in many cases they're near random.

Somewhere buried in your posts, I can discern
signs of a functioning brain.

You couldn't discern your ass with both hands.

I stand corrected once again. There is no sign whatsoever of a
functioning brain in your posts.
There's an advanced brain behind my posts.
The issue isn't one of my cognative skills, it's a function of your lack of
perception.


There are alternate explanations
besides a low IQ that can account for your poor logic.

Yeah, most likely you being too stupid to understand how logic actually
works.

As I said in a previous post, you've convinced me that you believe
this. That's a very sad commentary on your judgment.
See, again, you're not comprehending the statement.
I don't "believe it". I've assigned it the most likely case. There's not
enough evidence to decide yet.
You keep racing to conclusions. Yeah, sometimes you have to, particularly in
poker.
This isn't poker.


I don't
assume people are lying unless I see a reason to believe they are.
Claims of great improbability count as a reason.

You're the opposite.
See what a shithead you are?
I do have a reason.

I've told you that my IQ is higher than yours,
and you immediately choose to assume I'm lying.

No, I asked for evidence.
Not the same at all.

Let me be more precise: you didn't assume I'm lying, you merely were
strongly suspicious.
I asked for evidence for an improbable circumstance. People are very likely,
when in a debate to claim to have special knowledge they don't have, or
access to information they don't really have, or claim degrees that they've
never earned, or any number of other things. I've posted to usenet for 12
years or so, and seen any number of people bull*** incessently. Someone
claims to have a BA from UCLA, there's not a lot of problem taking it at
face value. They claim a Master's in Astrophysics from CalTech or MIT, one
requests verification.


But then, you're a shithead

You insist I haven't
provided evidence even though all the evidence you need is right there
in front of your face.

There's no evidence at all.
Getting a college degree doesn't require a superior IQ.

That would depend on the degree, wouldn't it?
BA or BS, not especially.
Masters or doctorate, probably, but it depends on the field. Becoming a
doctor, or becoming a scientist, probably. An MBA, probably not. Most people
can do the work to get an MBA.

Some degrees require specific types of thinking, and have little
requirements for others. Poetry, art, music, are focused degrees, requiring
substantial skills in some areas, and not many in others.



If you cared enough to to some rudimentary
research on the net, you could easily find other highly objective
evidence.
The only objective evidence for your claim is an IQ test.

So, you fall into the camp that believes that Obama graduating in the
top 10% at Harvard Law School is not an indication of a high IQ.
Thanks for clearing that up.
It's evidence he can work hard.
OR it's evidence of a natural talent.
Or some combination of both. Law school doesn't require brilliance or
insight into some undiscovered area. It may help, but legal theory can be
followed by most people with an above average IQ, and simply being willing
to do the work can get you near the top of your class. Sure, a genius level
IQ would help. But that's a converse argument. Genius IQ tends to make the
top of a class; extreme study habits also do. Converse arguments tend to
fail here.



Now, you could be manipulating that evidence. But you hurt your own
cause
when you do so, unless your plan is a bet later on. You are a poker
player,
after all.

Absent any evidence at all on your part.

I have all the evidence I need. Your beliefs are utterly irrelevant
to reality.
Your actual IQ is an unknown in this discussion.

No, my IQ is known with 100% certainty. I know it. You know the
lower bound of it. You merely refuse to believe it.
The lower bound is about 90
Your total lack of reasoning skills make that possibly an overstatement.

You've manged to unconvince me that you believe what you say about me.
This is too stupid even for you.
Seth, are you an idiot, or drunk, or what?
You make converse arguments, which by definition are invalid.
You make assumptions not presented and use them to prove your point.
You start with a conclusion then try and prove it, rather than starting with
evidence and reaching a conclusion supported by that evidence.
You also don't seem to understand when one SHOULD use inductive logic
(because the time horizon for the decision is too short to prove anything,
and one is forced to fall back on reasonable assumptions) and when one
should prove it deductively.
I voted for the same guy you did. I can see how deeply flawed he was as a
candidate, and you can't. Just as a big example. I voted for him anyway, as
the best choice remaining. I can defend that choice, and have, against
people who voted for McCain and weren't thrilled when they did that. They
weighed priorities differently than me, and that was fine. The idiots in the
last campaign were the ones who thought the choice was completely obvious,
and that one candidate was far superior to the other.




You actually eat vegetable dumplings?

Where did I suggest that?
You claimed to be aware of the intelligence of one.

You need to eat one to have a concept of its intelligence? There's
Beldumb logic for you.
Seth, some day you're going to learn to follow a logic chain.

Here you go again. This is like a Little Leaguer telling Alex
Rodriguez that he doesn't know how to hit a baseball.
No, this is someone that understands logic telling a shithead he doesn't.

Wrong again. I've given up on trying to tell you that.
As you make converse arguments and rely on (false) unstated assumptions.


You've fucked up most of your arguments by making assumptions that aren't
true.
The usenet/whackjob discussion displaying your errors nicely.
You idiotically assume that if the whackjob ratio is the same, then it
doesn't matter how many whackjobs there are... as if there's some limit as
to how many people any particular whackjob can be a danger to. You
assumed,
quite irrationally, that it was like crimes in the neighborhood. You
further
assume that whackjobs would have no particular attraction to usenet; that
their population would mirror their population in the citizenry at large.
This is, to say the least, simplisticly false.

Translation: I made a mistake, which I promptly admitted when it was
pointed out. I understand what a difficult concept this is for you
to grasp.
It's not a mistake. It's a logical error. It's a big one; the unstated
assumption fallacies are huge in logical errors. The parallel postulate was
'proved' numerous times by people making unstated assumptions that equated
to it, until it's independence was firmly determined (and led to
non-Euclidian geometries, one of which is paramount to Einstein's theory of
the curvature of space)



Probably not any day soon.

Posit : Awareness of intelligence of X
Requires : Exposure to X.
Most likely exposure to X in this case is consumption of X.
Ergo : You've consumed X.
It's Inductive logic, not deductive logic.
It doesn't prove anything, but it is the most likely case. It's a highly
useful tool in poker, and in any number of other games. You don't need
to
be
right all the time. Just most of the time.

Your logic is horrendous. If you'd never seen or eaten a vegetable
dumpling, would you honestly lack the ability to surmise the
intelligence of one? If so, maybe you shouldn't admit it. You
might be mistaken for a dumpling.
You can't make a statement about something with no knowledge of it.
Assumptions without any evidence at all are major logical errors.

Is that right? Let's see about that.

I've never seen an African baobab, have you? All I know is that it's
some sort of fruit they eat over there. I've also never seen the
French cakes known as "Les navettes de Saint Victor". I don't even
have a clue as to the ingredients. Do you? I'm guessing no.

Do you think you can make some sort of educated guess as to the
intelligence of a baobab? How about the French cakes? What do you
think the probability is that they have an IQ over 100? Over 50?
Over 10? C'mon, Beldin, I know you can do it. Do you have any guess
at all?

Without testing, or exposure, you don't know it. There are claims of
'intelligence' in vegetation, and I'm sceptical of them. However, I'm more
than willing to see evidence of it.

However, given the fact that you casually threw off the term "vegetable
dumpling", you've been exposed to it.

Now let's move on to vegetable dumplings. Since you say you've never
heard of them, let's go with those. Can you guess their
intelligence?
Surely not. "vegetable dumplings" could be a name for a species of pigmy
tribe in africa.


Care to reevaluate your logic that, since I'm aware that vegetable
dumplings have no intelligence, that I must have eaten some?
See how badly you failed logic?
I just gave you the chain above, and you can't remember it for like 1
minute.

You stated an awareness of the intelligence of something.
Now this means you know what it is. You know, in this case, that it's a food
source, and that it's actually dead, cooked, whatever.
Implicit in your use of it as an idiomatic expression, of course, is that
it's a common thing to YOU.
"Dumb as a stump" is a common idiomatic expression. "The IQ of a vegetable
dumpling" is not.
Just to be complete :
"Dumb as a stump " about 12,100 hits on Google.
"IQ of a vegetable dumpling" 0 hits.
When one makes up an idiomatic expression, it's due to exposure to
something. It implies an awareness of something's characteristics, and
having heard of that something.



More evidence of the hillbilly aspect of your life.

You believe that only hillbillies eat Chinese food? That pretty
much
tells all we need to know about your deductive reasoning skills.
Christ alfuckingmighty.
Do these look like chinese food?

And I suppose you think this is the only recipe in the world for
vegetable dumplings. Yep, you sure are a bight one, Beldimbulb.

No, but it's the one I first thought of.
And it's the one related to my comment.
So your inductive logic seems way off.

Again, it's your logic that's lost somewhere in left field. First, I
was the one who initially mentioned veggy dumplings. And I was
thinking of the Chinese variety, which is the only kind I've knowingly
seen.
And I've never seen one. I eat chinese several times a month. Googling has
it showing up as more of a thai dish, which really ain't my thing at all.

Then you didn't do a very good job of Googling, not that it's
particularly relevant.
I took the hits in order. I'm much more of a Garlic Chicken and Garlic Beef
with Broccoli kinda guy.



Secondly, even ignoring the first point leaves you without a leg to
stand on. You assumed that my mention of veggy dumplings was
evidence of hillibiiliness purely because of your ignorance of or
failure to realize that there are many kinds of veggy dumplings. Since
I could have been (and, in fact, was) referring to one of the many
other varieties, that reference provides zero in the way of evidence
for your belief.
Dumplings are a hillbilly food.

They're also Chinese food. They're also Thai food. They're also
Korean food. They're also Indian food. They're also Russian food.
They're also French food. They're also German food. In fact, they
even sell dumplings at my local supermarket here in LA.
Sure, but you're also writing country music.

If there's some dumpling that isn't, it doesn't invalidiate the inductive
reasoning.

OTOH, if there are a wide variety of dumplings eaten by different
types of people all over the world, then your reasoning doesn't have a
whole lot of value.
Well, we're in the United States.
The US dumpling is often served with chicken (as in Chicken and Dumplings)
That's the first case an American will typically think of.
What the hell is in a Russian dumpling? Google has potato and spices, which
sounds horrible, but my palate is admittedly unsophisticated.
Hell, I live in New England and don't like seafood.



In fact, since you've obviously read many of my posts and are a
stickler for detail, you should know by know that I live in LA.
Never read that.
Amazingly, you aren't the focus of my reading of usenet.

Nor did I suggest that I am. However, it's painfully apparent that
you read a lot of my posts.
Your politics. Also your desire to bang Annie Duke.
And again, on this point, I wholeheartedly share your view.



Knowing that, you should have seen that it's far more likely that I
was referring to one of the many Asian varities.

In California?
I visited California (Long Beach area) and found the Chinese piss-poor. My
beloved, who lived out there for 3 years, agreed wholeheartedly.

So what? Is that supposed to be somehow relevant? I'll bet you even
think that the Chinese food in Long Beach is remotely representative
of the entire LA area. Chalk up yet another in the long string of
examples where your poor thought process, coupled with your ignorance,
leads you to a wrong conclusion.
Nope. I didn't say it was conclusive. I stated it was the only sample I had.
Based on my samples, and the only information I had about it, I wasn't
considering chinese at all.
She raved about the Mexican out there. She pines away for Taco Surf. She
also remembers Hoff's Huts fondly and craves a Best Place breakfast several
times a month, and we end up at Denny's when she can't get over it (which is
like ending up at Applebees when you want Outback, but anyway)


My helpful
suggestion for you is that you give up trying to judge other people's
intelligence and start actually putting that 136 IQ of yours to work.

I'm not trying to judge you.
I asked for evidence.
Your poor logic skills would be evidence, but they hurt your case, not
help
it.

You judge me and others incessantly. You can scarcely participate in
a conversation without doing it. Or are you going to claim that
"idiot boy", "retard", "shithead", and the like are neutral,
non-judgmental terms?
They're "Helmuthian" terms. They get you to cut through the bull*** and
make your actual point.
They trigger emotion in most people, so they remove the facade of
impartiality that most people put on, and show their biases.
Let's do someone else, for a second. Joe Long. He's biased against
government intervention, to the point of insanity. He doesn't want to be
regulated, even for his own good. In fact, he doesn't want to be regulated
ESPECIALLY for his own good. He generally fails to see that this is often
also for the good of everyone else too. As a result, he's against safety
laws, carseat laws, smoking bans, and any number of other logical
preventatives.
He isn't likely to change, and on any given argument, he tries to sound
unbiased. Push his buttons enough, and that comes out.
Look at -M- (yeah, those are supposed to be tilde's, but I don't know how to
get them on my keyboard)
He's a Randian follower. Extremely so. Provoke him enough, point out Ayn was
banging another guy while married, and he gets defensive and irritated and
shows his bias completely.
It's USEFUL to do this.


Another example of your faulty reasoning. You overlook the obvious
fact that there are degrees of cautiousness. You also assume that
rational thinking can lead to only one course of action despite the
fact that rational thought arising from different values and
assumptions will likely lead to different conclusions.

No, I assume rational people measure risk / reward, and math only
comes
to
one conclusion, always.
It's a precise science.

This is great comedy.
Yeah, I suspect math is a joke to you.

Another in your long list of missed targets.
Pepe, how long you been retarded?
Seriously, if you think that's me missing your point, rather than thinking
you're an idiot for claiming it and turning it against you, then you
really
need mental help.

Why am I not surprised that you misinterpreted my reply? Par for the
course in Beldinland.
If you claim I misinterpreted it, please state the actual correct
interpretation here :



If it's so precise, why don't you quantify the
definition of "cautiousness", and when you're done with that,
calculate the exact risk/reward ratio of using my real name on Usenet.
Well, since the value of harm to ones family is usually EXTREMELY
negative,
the acceptable risk is usually extremely low. Which precludes posting
under
your real name if your address may be easily accessed under the current
level of possible harm.

I have a better chance of winning Super Lotto, and I don't even buy
tickets.
No, shithead. The risk is far greater than a lottery prize.
And the loss far in excess of a lottery ticket.

Allow me to rephrase: I have a better chance of being hit by
lightning.
That's surely untrue.
You're a low level celeb. Like it or not, you are. Not only that, you engage
in self promotion while posting here. In a field (country music) that tends
towards the right wing, you're left wing. You think fans might not be drawn
to find out about you? And you think some might not be shocked at your
positions?





Especially if you actually are a lowish level 'celeb' type.

Songwriters are hardly celebrities.
Actually, some are. And I listed you as low level.
You're no Neil Peart. Who is?

Neil Peart is a performer.
He's a performer, an author, a lyricist.
Also into philosophy.
And he's a god of Drumming. He'd be that good if he never performed
again.

That's why he's a celebrity. If he were
a songwriter only like me, few people outside the industry would know
his name.
Depends what he wrote.
Lots of people know Irving Berlin, for instance.
Rogers and Hammerstein.
Bernie Taupin

And Irving Berlin and Rodgers and Hammerstein lived how long ago?
Bernie Taupin is one of the precious few known songwriters today, and
he's a special case, as he was part of a team with a hugely popular
rock star. I'd be suprised if you could name even a handful (if that
many) of contemporary non-performing songwriters that are creating
hits today.

Tony Romeo
Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil
Tommy Boyce & Bobby Hart
Sean Garrett
Tom Craskey
Lauren Christie
Linda Perry
Kara DioGuardi
Shellback (Johan Karl Schuster )
Savan Kotecha,
Alexander Kronlund
Max Martin.

You have no idea how unintentionally funny you are!
Not funny at all, but hell....

I know it's
wrong for me to get so many laughs at your expense, but you make it so
easy.
Seth, there's moron, and there's fucking moron.
You're approaching 'fucking moron'.


I said "contemporary non-performing songwriters", and this is the list
you come up with?

Well, "contemporary" is a relative term.

Mann and Weil had their hits 50 years ago. Same
with Boyce/Hart. Tony freaking Romeo has been dead for 15 years.

They worked on the Monkees and the Partridge Family.
It's a simple find.
I'm not as decrepit as you are, Seth, but I'm no kid either.
There are fewer people not writing their own songs these days than there
were in decades past. And, of course, I'm an old fart now, so I don't listen
to what the kids do, either.

Lauren Christie is a singer/songwriter. Good work from the guy who's
a stickler for details.


I've never heard of most of those people on the list, although Google
shows me that a few of them are, in fact, contemporary songwriters.
Congratulations, assuming you didn't yourself use Google to find them.
Of course I did. You think I ran out and bought Pink, or Britney Spears, or
Christiana Aguillera?
I knew where to look, of course.
I coulda listed Pye Dubios, but he hasn't co-written anything in decades. I
know he's a performer in Max Webster (or was) but he's more famous for being
a listed co-author of the lyrics for Tom Sawyer and Force Ten.
And again, you don't get it. Google makes it easy for people to look for
you. Usenet is wild and woolly. There's nothing wrong with a little street
fighting here. But if you have an actual livelihood, and an actual family,
that can be harmed if you piss off some whackjob, a level of insulation is
prudent.


.