Re: chinese food and illegal immigration


Good ole' dependable Beldim. He's been pwmed from here to eternity
and back, and yet, oblivious to his drubbing, he gamely returns for
more. I wonder how many people are following these threads and
whether they're getting laughs at Beldim's expense or whether they're
praying that the carnage will finally end.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:40:25 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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.

No, I'm claiming that your usage in that context is technically
correct but unusual, unnecessary, and just plain weird.If you had you
posted, "I don't want to post my real name on Usenet", most normal
people would assume that you don't want to post enough of your "real
names" to allow yourself to be identified. For example, supposing you
were named "Jack Smith", you might be OK with posting "Jack" or
possibly even "Mr. Smith", but you wouldn't be OK with including "Jack
Smith" in your posts. Again, that's how most people would interpret
it.

OTOH, most people, if they were to want to communicate the above,
would say, "I don't want to post my real name." They wouldn't say,
"I don't want to post my real names." The latter sounds like some
kind of language translation computer program where recognition of
colloquial speech was left out.


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.

I'm certain that they are, in your opinion.


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?

The most likely explanation is that you, not me, are the idiot. You
wrote:
--------------------------------------------
So, computer geeks are emotionally healthy and stable compared to the
general population. I'm sure you have data to back that up.

They are generally MORE stable.
The rise in the number of whack-job incidents backs that up.
-----------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/efb104bdaa8ed3bf

Do you never tire of making a jackass of yourself?


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.

Yeah, possibly as many as 6 or 7.

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.

I did no such thing. The problem here is that you, our
self-proclaimed logic expert, misunderstands what is meant by
"unstated assumptions". But I can predict with near 100% certainty
that this will not stop your rants about the logic of others,
including those whose skills are superior to yours.

It's a common flaw. The fact is, most people don't do logic well.

Take you, for example.


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.

That's possible. It's just that it's not functioning.

The issue isn't one of my cognative skills, it's a function of your lack of
perception.

I can understand why you need to hold tight to this fantasy.


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 believe it's most likely, dumbass. That reflects serious flaws
in your judgment.

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.

No. you didn't. That I'm smarter than you is hardly improbable. If
you were living in the real world, that much would be obvious to you.
And the fact that you need evidence shows, as I correctly stated, that
you're strongly suspicious.

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.

Wouldn't that depend on the specific BA or BS? You think that a
person of average or slightly above average intelligence is likely to
earn, say, a BS in Computer Science from MIT? You think there are
lots of alumni of, say, Princeton, with merely average or slightly
above average intelligence?

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.

How about an MBA from, say, Harvard?

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.

You think all law schools are created equal? You think it's likely
that there are many students in the top 10% at Harvard Law with merely
average or slightly above average intelligence? Or is it more likely
that a top 10% Harvard Law student is in the category of "gifted" or
above?


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.

WTF are you talking about? Converse arguments are by definition
invalid? In what parallel universe?

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.

That was a lot of typing just to say the same nonsense you've repeated
ad nauseum in these threads.

I voted for the same guy you did. I can see how deeply flawed he was as a
candidate, and you can't.

You've demonstrated a proficiency at reading minds that's on a par
with all the other skills you've proven yourself not to possess.

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.

Because anyone whose priorities, values, and judgment differ sharply
from Beldim is, by definition, an idiot. In Beldimland, that is.


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.

Fail. Yawn.

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)

Translation: I made a mistake.

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.

Speaking of inductive reasoning, could you show any less ability to
use it? Have you been exposed to a lot of fruits and vegetables in
your life? Have you known any of them to exhibit intelligence? Have
you had any reason to even suspect that they might have intelligence?
And you can't make an educated guess about a baobab, knowing that it's
a fruit? And you have the gall to insult my reasoning skills!

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.

Would you consider that to be a) Highly likely b) Somewhat likely c)
Somewhat unlikely or d) Highly unlikely?


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.

But that's not what you said originally. You said that I must have
eaten vegetable dumplings, not that I merely knew what they were. You
can't even follow your own arguments; it's hardly a wonder that you
have so much trouble with other people's.

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.

That doesn't make it a valid assumption. But you made it, 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.

Phil Helmuth is your role model? That explains a lot.

They trigger emotion in most people, so they remove the facade of
impartiality that most people put on, and show their biases.

No, they show that you're an twerp who has an inflated sense of
himself and who likes to insult people.

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.

Have you considered psychotherapy?

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 :

I didn't say you missed my point; I said you missed that target, i.e.,
your suggestion that I don't take math seriously could hardly be
farther off the mark.



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?

Again, I'm not a low level celeb. Perhaps after I have some actual
big hits on the Billboard charts, you might be able to accurately make
that assertion. Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later.
I've waited long enough.

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.

40 years out of date is in no stretch of the imagination
"contemporary" in the world of pop music.

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?

So, I was correct in the first place. You couldn't name any. You
had to use Google. I suppose you believed that using Google was a
logical interpretation of what I said. That says all anyone needs to
know about your judgment.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
.