Sounds like a another hair splitting contest...
What will be the impact of chess being solved?
Sort:
zborg wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I suppose, then, that the same should probably apply to @Ludrah's opinions on literal vs figurative language interpretation.
That one passed over his head without touching a hair, unfortunately.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Jan 23, 2013
0
#504
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Nor for all of the old.
Exactly. Which is why you shouldn't bring up the age in a debate. Even if something is true for the majority of the youth, it does not have to be true for the one you are debating against. Maybe it is true for me, maybe not, you don't know.
For the record, I did not bring it up, but merely responded when your typo confirmed what you meant to deny.
When you alone are debating several people at the same time in text form, it's difficult to distinquish who wrote what. Especially some time after.
I've had this difficulty in conference calls, but never when every name is printed with every comment.
Must be a malady affecting the young.
ludrah wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
But what if the debate is about how it feels to be old?
This is what I've deduced from a sample of one:
A young person doesn't know shit, but can quickly figure it out.
An older guy can't figure out shit, but it doesn't matter 'cause he figured it out when he was young, and he remembers.
I sample of one is not sufficient. The same goes for you, TheGrobe. Together, it's still only a sample of two.
Aw hell! I forgot that you're one of those fellas that doesn't get it if it ain't written literally. You see, I mentioned the small sample size to let the reader know that I'm aware there is nothing scientific a'tall about my conclusion.
But you are still rhetorically incisive. Most of the time. 
Jan 24, 2013
0
#507
If the reader has a reason to trust the conclusion, why publish it in a chess forum under a fictitious name?
You don't trust me, Ziryab?
So, you won't be taking me up on that bridge deal, then?
Jan 24, 2013
0
#509
My point is that our mutual friend Jacques did not publish his deconstruction of Wittgenstein (or rather his demonstration of Wittgenstein's self-deconstruction, or the inherent nature of Wittgenstein's language to self-deconstruct, or ...) in a chess forum. Rather, he used a publisher that screened writers (for their intellectual contribution and writing--not their Nazi tendencies*) and had a distribution network that would put the work in front of suitable readers.
*see Paul De Man.
Because it wasn't a conclusion, it was an anecdotal data point and not completely without value.
I'm so confused. Is there a bridge for sale?
There's a big one in Alaska, last I heard.
Jan 25, 2013
0
#513
zborg wrote:
There's a big one in Alaska, last I hear.
lol!
Already paid for (with YOUR money).
Ziryab wrote:
browni3141 wrote:
One's age has no bearing on the validity of one's argument. I haven't read all the posts, but if ludrah is spouting nonsense, need you know his age to decide if it's worth it to continuing arguing?
You are correct. Age has no bearing. But it is not without influence.
Oh, you sly wordsmith you... 
And perhaps age has no bearing on the validity of one's argument. But it does indeed often have a bearing on the sorts of things one chooses to argue about...
Or the angles from which one approaches things...
Looks like the pasta won. Or did you come on strong in the endgame?
Jan 28, 2013
0
#518
i didn't say with pasta i said about pasta. but i see how you have to be funny.
OMG, two whole sentences! Now if you would only begin them with caps, we are well on our way to a lovely conversation.
Do they have lots of @Flags in Las Vegas?
I suppose, then, that the same should probably apply to @Ludrah's opinions on literal vs figurative language interpretation.
That one passed over his head without touching a hair, unfortunately.