Kerriem,

Feel free to move this. As usual I don't know what subject it is under.

#1 how about a definition of ad hominem. It seems to vary from anywhere such as "what I don't agree with" to "discussing the speaker". One particular poster seems to have a very individual definition. An ad hominem is literally an argument about the man. “You are wrong because you are censored.” It can take many forms, but addressing a belief of people is not ad hominem.

I know we’ve been here before, but obviously it has not worked. My hope is someone with tact can post a definition that person will read and understand. I don’t know what more to say about it.

#2 is basic logic. If a+b=c then c-b=a. If there is ever an instance where a+b=c but c-b does not equal a then it is not useful logic. If you reach one wrong conclusion from the logic it doesn’t matter how often you, or anyone else repeats it. It may be as widely accepted as the millennium beginning in 2000 not 2001, but it is not valid logic. It might be right 9,999 times out of a thousand, but that one time invalidates it.

Again, I’m hoping a person whose name does make people hyperventilate calmly explains this.

Blue, it's linked to from the Dump, but Here it is again.

And clicking on the "index" or "home" buttons at the bottom of that link will allow you to link to the other logical fallicies you ask about in part 2 of your post (such as the "Argument From Ignorance" which came up in the discussion on another board, which brought this question up in your mind.

ScottN & TomM,

Thanks. argumentum ad ignorantiam would be great name for a rock band, BTW.

Another "true-ism" I find useful is "All generalities are wrong. (Especially that one.)" It is in the form of a joke but it is right. (Especially in the parenthetical joke part.)

If someone says all apples are red they must get agreement on what constitutes an apple, etc. ("that's not red its mauve!") but there opponent only needs to find one green one.

It isn't exact because with severe limiting you can use a generality such as "all apples in this room are red." Of course the same tactical problem applies in the opponent having a much easier task, but the generalist has a much better chance of "proving" his point.

I have not seen that one triggered since Peter left, but it is only a matter of time. (All absolutes resort to generalities.)

Inductive reasoning does not lead to logical certainty the way that deductive reasoning does, but it is valid, provided you aknowlege its limitations.

If every apple in this room is red, and every apple in that room is red, you can induce that it likely (though not certain) that every apple in the room over yonder is red. As you said, it only takes one green apple to disprove the conjecture, but as you continue to find more and more apples, all of them red, you can make your prediction that the next room will contain only red apples with more conviction.

Science discovers the "laws of nature" by inductive reasoning. Occasionally a "green apple" turns up, and scientific theory must change to accomodate and explain it. Einstein's theory of Special Relativity replaced Newtonian physics to explain the "green apple" of the failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment. But as long as there is understanding of its limitations, inductive reasoning is as valid in arguments as deductive reasoning.

Another Topic on: "Weird Nitcentralia that does not really fit anywhere else"

In the English (American version anyway) Language, why is the W pronounced as a "Double-U" as opposed to a "Double-V?" At least according to my keyboard the W looks like a "Double-V.

(Feel free to move this post to a new board if it belongs elsewhere. I didn't completely check to see...)

In the original Latin alphabet (on which most modern western alphabets are based) there is no "v" or "w." When "u" came before another vowel, it was treated as an almost-consonant (the way "y" is in the word "yellow"), and pronounced like our "w." At some point some scribe began to distiguish the two sounds, using a rounded "u" for the vowel, and a pointed "v" for the consonant. The sound "woo" was originally written as "uu" and later as "vu" but when writing quickly it often came out as "vv" or "w." In English, when the "v" somehow became associated with the sound half-way between an "f" and a "b," the "doubled u" was shifted to represent the old sound.

A very similar process separated first the "j" and later the "y" from the "i."

En Francais, it's referred to as a double-v. I have to agree with the French on that one.

TomM,

Whenever someone points out something that does make sense in the English language, I answer that I have no idea, but it is probably traceable to the people who tried to impose a Latinate grammar on a Germanic language.

Of course, there are exceptions. (Exceptions galore.)

Have Jake Sisko find the "R" in the rank of Col. Kira.

Whenever someone points out something that does [not](?) make sense in the English language, I answer that I have no idea, but it is probably traceable to the people who tried to impose a Latinate grammar on a Germanic language. Blue Berry

I'm assuming that your thoughts ran faster than your typing fingers, otherwise you seem to be saying that imposing a irrational (non-logical) Latin grammar on an incompatable yet equally irrational Germanic vocabulary produces order and sense.

Although the "exceptions galore" tag almosts suggests that you really did mean that. (I'm inclined to assume that the word "exceptions," however, refers to words and phrases that resisted the Grammarians' attempt to wrestle them into line, rather than to counter-examples to the assertion that the force-fit was reasonable.)

TomM,

lol.

Oops! "not" (Better late than never.)

Disease linked to hormonal imbalance more prevalent in lesbians than in "straight" women.

I am sure that some people are going to claim that it "proves" that homosexuality is bio-chemically determined which in turn only shows (insert pet theory here).

Unfortunately, we can't make that leap without commiting a logical fallicy, usually either an inductive fallicy or a causal fallicy.

Guys, I'm as intrigued by a thread devoted to odd byways of logical reasoning as you are...but please try and keep the examples non-controversial (ie. non-PM or RM-esque) OK?

Things like whether OJ Simpson or the Ramseys are Murderers, right?

Hey, you think you can explain either of those cases using rational deduction, I'm all ears. (Actually, Vincent Bugliosi does a pretty good job of logicking on Simpson in his book Outrage.)

How about people using words that are area specific to describe other regions even though doing so, makes the other region description inaccurate.

Example: Solar system, which of course comes from the star of our planetary system, Phil... I mean Sol.

There is probably enough language type nits here to form a new board based on the usage of words, letter sounds, and any others.

Kerrie-

Sorry about that. When I read the article I was sure that people (on both sides of the issue) with special hobby-horses would jump on in to "explain" their pet theories, and wanted to forstall it, but I figured that posting in RM or PM would only "encourage" them to spout off. I figured that posting in a thread that calmly examined the logic of the argument might be a better prophylactic. I see you point though, that you don't want them bringing their "baggage" here.

Hmm... Sol = Solar system.
Then Betelgeuse = Betelgeusear system. Vega = Vegar system. Barnard's Star = Barnard's Starar system. And so on, including the tremendously awkward Alpha Centauriar system and Wolf 359ar system.
Yeesh!

and if Kahn had his own star system, it could confused with a cardasian drink

And Kahn could be confused with Khan.

Is anyone else tired of seeing the phrase "sneak peak" instead of "sneak peek"?

As long as you are referring to a hidden mountaintop, no.

No worries, Tom. Given where you moderate I figured you must have been thinking of something sensible like that.

Meanwhile...I've been trying to figure out how to sort this thread out and I think I've finally come up with A Plan.

First off, of course, for general language musings there happens to be a highly erudite and deeply nifty Eytmology thread in Non-SciFi Novels. From what I hear the moderator there is a really nice, fun and of course erudite person who just loves it when posters visit her sparsely-populated board.

Then we take the random-but-fun stuff that's left and I stick it here in the Sink under Rants and rename it...well, I'm not certain what to rename it, I'm open to suggestions.

Whaddaya think, sirs (and ma'ams)?

Kerriem,

Reason? In politics??!! Are you mad, woman?

Logic in religion? Surely you jest.

(Sorry, I didn't have time to post in the AM. TomM already deflated those jokes.)

Are these Rants? I assume a rant is something like getting caught behind a school bus and having to wait while the red flashing lights go on. (I rarely get stuck behind a bus without muttering, "Teach the kids not to run in traffic and let natural selection weed out the 1diots.")

I assumed this would be more of a nitcentral rant theater. Where on can complain about things like links as "proof". (They only prove that you link to someone of that belief. I can link to "proof" the world is flat and the moon landings were faked.)

I'd give TV show examples, but I don't know what annoying things are going on there. (Although repeating an error like referring to a Sol-ar system seems like one.)


Star Trekkie,

Did you bring that up on a Star Trek board and get ignored as people keep making the mistake regardless?

Question.

One of the great bugaboos on the Nitcentral board is the fact that the Simpsons is verboten. No posts. None. Nein. Nip. This is because Phil apparently disapproves of the show and wishes to keep it out of the boards. Since these are his boards, I'm inclined to respect that.

But, but but but--

There are boards for many things on here. Saturday Night Live. That '70s Show. Futurama (by the same people who do Simpsons). Shows that, let's say, have a tendency to push the envelope. Shows that objectively, are no better or worse than The Simpsons.

This is sort of an annoying point, but for some reason it is bothering me tonight. Whither Simpsons?

I don't know all the gruesome details, but apparently the basic point is that the Chief feels The Simpsons (bearing in mind the massive kiddie-pop phenom that Bart Simpson was in the early years) sets a rotten example for the small fry. Is, in fact, deliberately setting said example. Thus it's specially reprehensible and he cannot in good conscience allow discussion of it here.

Now yes, I agree totally that there are about a million holes you can poke through that reasoning. I've poked at 'em myself more than once.

But...as you say, it's the Chief's world, we just live in it...and by posting here we tacitly agree to abide by house rules. So any truly meaningful argument at this point should be directed at the top.

Kerriem,
You misspelled "etymology" the same way you did a long time ago on that board's title before I pointed it out to you... erm... I mean: that way cool moderator of the etymology board made you misspell "etymology" the way it was misspelled a long time ago on that board's title.

Heh... The really ironic thing here is that I misspelled it the same way while typing this post... good thing I paid attention to the preview window.

Witty and sensitive. You left out those adjectives that also describe that spell-challenged moderator. Oh, and I think she has piercing blue eyes, too.

CR,

she has piercing blue eyes -- CR

Does she have license to carry her eyes? ("Duck!" yelled Fred, but it was too late. The eyeballs pierced John's bulletproof vest. He was dead before he hit the ground. Tony turned him over. "They're blue like a clear sky on a summer afternoon when you gaze, just gaze, at the sky and wonder about nothing important. John will never wonder again,” he said as the tear rolled down his cheek.)

That was beautiful, man.

Craig, anytime you wanna get all weird like that about the Non-SciFi Novels moderator, please feel free. (Although the 'piercing' thing's a little off-base, 'cause of the myopia. But the rest is JUST fine. ).

And, Blue...the tear was a specially nice touch.

I meant that the color of the eyes is a piercing blue, not that the (in)ability of them to sharply focus is piercing, which doesn't quite make sense. Maybe I just should have left it at blue (the color, not the NitC poster).
Bemused, huh? Well, I guess I have that effect on some people.

If Nipickers don't deal in reality, how are they able to post messages on multiple boards (other than the Star Trek boards since they are set in the same realm of reality)?

My guess is some parralel dimensional quantum flux stream that induces a nonlinear transpectral gateway every time some event takes place outside the normal reality of a cause and effect dimension.

Would not the abilty and act of posting on boards other than ones that are set in the same reality be a nit.

Shouldn't Blue Berry be confined to politics, ScottN be confined to anything that breaks Newtonian Physics, and Luigi Novi be confined to Star Trek?

Ah, but I'm confined to non-Newtonian physics (in particular, Quantum Mechanics), I can tunnel through the barriers and post wherever I want!

Mwahahahaha!

Ah, but I'm confined to non-Newtonian physics (in particular, Quantum Mechanics), I can tunnel through the barriers and post wherever I want!-ScottN

But if you're not bound by newtonian physics, how then do type on your keyboard? When you type, you are utilizing an inertial reference frame. That is, your brain is transmitting electrical impulses to your hands and thus instructing your hands where to go and how hard to hit the keys in order to apply the necessary force for the keys to input commands. If you are not utilizing an inertial reference frame your mind would have no way to gauge how far your hands are from where-ever, and therefore you wouldn't be able to type.

Your post said that you are "confined to non-Newtonian physics". By that statement you are saying that you are confined to the laws of physics except Newtonian Physic. You did not say that you use Quantum mechanics in addition to Newtonian Physics!

Therefore, ScottN either has a telepathic relationship with his computer, or is very wealthy for inventing a different type of computer interface.

When you type, you are utilizing an inertial reference frame

I'm in Earth's gravitational field, which is decidedly not an inertial reference frame.

Note that non-Newtonian physics contains classical physics in the limit case (macroscopic levels for QM, or velocities that are small relative to c in the case of relativity). Neener neener neener!

Oh, and Poll, I had left out an "If" in my original post. Should have been,

"If I'm confined..."

You have no sense of fair play, sir!

Perhaps thou would be better suited for a philosophical debate. Does't thee accept thy challenge, thou blasphemous heretic!!??

Like how can ScottN type post for these boards if he is just a collection of energy fields? (I got to be careful around you, you know)

oh, and "If" I had invested money in the stoc...

Well, ya didn't!
(unless it is one of the those temporal paradox things where time is not linear.)

Ah, you want to take me on, do you? Little did you know that I also am the Puppet Ruling Council Philosopher! Therefore, philosophically speaking, I'm quite qualified to discuss these things!

Oops!!! Missed the at the end of that post!

Just not qualified to type them apparently.


Ah, you want to take me on, do you? Little did you know that I also am the Puppet Ruling Council Philosopher! Therefore, philosophically speaking, I'm quite qualified to discuss these things! -ScottN

Okay then, in the alley behind the comic book store at 1700 hours, don't be late!!

Didn't you know, I debate with the logic of a politcian and the wit of a lawyer. . .
. . .
. . .
Scratch the last sentence, it's not inspiring the fear I hoping for.

I guess this is the best place to post this. I was wondering if any Nitpickers were planning to attend Dragon Con in Atlanta (August 29 - September 1). Maybe it would be interesting to meet in real life. I don't know where we would meet or what we would do but I just wanted to see if there was any interest and who might be attending. Maybe we could at least see each other at a panel and acknowledge our fellow posters.

Nove, perhaps you should start a Conventions board in the Comic Books boards' Kitchen Sink.

I guess that would be a good idea, Luigi. I thought about that, but it's not strictly a comic book convention. Fans of film/TV, gaming, anime, etc. would be interested too. But I may post it there anyway. Maybe someone will post about other conventions.

Feel free to delete this, I just had some questions that I wouldn't mind having the answers to.

1. Who holds the record for longest uninterrupted moderation of one board? It WAS Josh Gould, I think.

2. Can anyone out there refresh me on the boards that were deleted? I remember Harsh Realm. I THINK there an Avengers board. I moderated a G.I. Joe board (which I am still very irked about being deleted because I was using it to store fan fiction).

3. Who posted the very first message (not counting Phil) at NitCentral? I'd guess Todd Pence. Is this true?

4. Trivia Question: I know the answer to it, but I'd like to see if anyone can remember. The current "Religious Musings" sprang from TWO other boards. Can you name them?

Re: 3. Are you talking about the Discus boards? Or Phil's online newsletters?

4. Insurrection: The Bath Scene
and I don't remember the other.

3. Discus board.

4. Anyone else? Hint: It doesn't exist anymore. Chuckle, chuckle...

Re. 2: There was a Profiler board at one time. I think there was also one for Millenium.

Re. 4: I think one was Eating a Jeep.

Spinoff of #1. Record for the longest unmoderated discussion. NextGen for approx. 3 years. Mod Jon Raines disappeared in the spring of '99 and the topic was left to it's own devices until I took over in spring of 2002. What a mess.

Good calls, Butch! Except...Eating a Jeep is not quite correct as it was a sub-board of another board!

That would be "The Kitchen Sink".

I think you're partially correct, Scott, but I was thinking of "The Pretender." Remember?

Is eating a jeep an episode of M*A*S*H? (If I remember it was one thing Klinger tried to get a section 8.)

The Pretender Board had a section called "Why is this on the Pretender Board?" and a topic there was "Religious Musings"

Good call!

1. Who holds the record for longest uninterrupted moderation of one board? It WAS Josh Gould, I think.

Really? Cooool. I'm still the de facto moderator of the DS9 board... anyone want it?

Just to clarify things, I did NOT make the first ever post to the Nitcentral discussion board, although I was one of the earliest posters when this whole thing started way back in the fall of '98. I was the first poster to the Classic Trek "Man Trap" board, which is the first board listed in order in the whole forum. So that's probably why someone thinks I was the first. But I distinctly remember at the time that there were already several other posts on different boards at the time I first made mine. I don't know who the first poster (besides Phil) was, although someone willing to do a little searching could probably determine the earliest post, at least the earliest currently surviving one.

The absolutely oldest post I can find was posted on the "Devil in the Dark" board on TOS.

By Scott Neugroschl on Monday, October 12, 1998 - 11:39 pm:

A good day-and-a-half before Todd's posts. This could possibly be the first non-Chief post. I do remember that first day, sort of. I really only remember posts on "Devil in the Dark" and "City on the Edge of Forever."

Oooooh!!!! I win!!!!!! Cool!!!!!!

I believe I started posting in late January of 2000.

Oh, I've been here since Autumn 1998, plus I've been moderating a board since May 1999 - does that count for anything? :D

hmmm... Scott Neugroschl

Now I understand why it's ScottN.

...by the way, how do you pronounce that?

Exactly the way it's spelled! It's just not spelled the way it's pronounced!

NEW-GROW-SHELL???

Is that the pronounciation? (If I spelled pron... correctly)

Close. Neu-GROW-shul

Mxyzptlk?

Interesting. I can't find anything of mine from before last year.

The first time I can actively remember posting here was during the seventh season of DS9. I used a variety of handles before I settled on this one, so my record is hard to trace... just the way I like it!

I made my first post on the Voyager board on Aug. 6, 1999 after having been lurking for about a month. And lest you think I'm some Johnny-come-lately nitpicker, I got a nit into the Chief's 2nd NextGen guide.

Ooh, where?

First post (to this or any other Net forum): December 07/99, to the Brain That Wouldn't Die thread in MST3K Season Five.

I was a new and enthusiastic MiSTie at the time and was so tickled by the notion of swopping great lines I was lured wholesale into the world of Net message boards.

Luigi, it was for Time's Arrow Pt. 2.

Funny, I just reviewed that section, and I couldn't find your name.

I'm in the front of the book in Guild Acknowledgments, under my legal first name, Stanley. (almost no one calls me that)

Oh. Which nit was it, though?

The one about Clemens not having the gun cocked and Data being able to take it away from him. I also submitted the one about Data mis-identifying the gun (double action instead of single action), but someone else beat me to it.

Just got an email delivered to me which appears to have been sent to wcollins@nitcentral.com.

Subject line says 'Need a companion?' Appears blank otherwise.

Any idea what this is about?

Spam. It's either a dictionary attack or a robot scraper.

Delete it.

Luigi, is this you?


http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001256.html

well, one of the people who posted on that site..

Unless my cousin in Italy has learned how to write English (and become a Peter David fan), or unless our paternal grandfather has returned from the grave and done the same, yes, I'd say that the Luigi Novi who posted on that blog is me.

your writing style is rather consistent... too bad you couldn't add those red letters

Who in the heck is david peter anyway...

Are you kidding?

For what it's worth, I lurk at Peter David's blog once in a while, and Luigi is a fairly frequent poster there, though not as much as he is here! There wouldn't be enough time in the day for that!

There was no doubt in my mind it was the same great person.

Hello all but one of you. I wanted to drop by briefly and let you know that I am still alive and if not kicking at least shuffling.

Apparently according to the doctor he thinks I have an arythmic heartbeat. Instead of doing the usual lub dub lub dub thing I go lub dub lub... lub dub. At rest its not that big a deal but when I push myself too hard or get too stressed out it can cause some, issues. Sort of like haivng a V8 with a dead cylinder. At idle not that big a deal but try and race with it and bad thigns can happen.

This last weekend was not a very good one so the issue that happened was my heart got tripped up and out of rhythm and I went into cardiac arrest. One minute I am sitting at my desk trying to figure out how to try and defend myself when the jury is also the judge (I still say letitng a moderator who is involved in an argument get to decide if the person get to be banned or not is an abuse of their power. Thats like letting one of the lawyers in a trial also be the judge.) and the next I am waking up in the back of an ambulance. That makes twice in my life I've had that experience and I am not fond of it.

So in accordance with my doctor's wish's to get me to reduce my stress (Good luck on that between mother's illness, my wife's, the debt we are in and the lack of hope of being able to get out of poverty anytime within my lifetime and he wants me to reduce stress.) and try and figure out if this arythmeia is a recent development or how long I've had it and what to do about it (I see a cardiac specialist next week. I'm wondering though how good of treatment I will get given how I'm on the medical card. Probably not much since I'm not rich enough to afford anything spectacular. I've already got my will and my living will drawn up.) I am going to be taking it easy on various things. Including the web. I may be back I may not be. Considering how I just spent the last few days flat on my back I am not sure why I feel so tired but I do. Fortunately the cousins came in and helped get the garden out, a few of the repairs done that I was in the middle of and the crops are in. So now all I have to do is concentrate on keeping things around the home picked up and getting a job.

Thank you for the various commennts and good wishes on the other board from all of you but one. And you know who you are and I've got you down in my book. (With a line struck throuhg it.) And MR Crusher the reason why I keep coming back and keep fighting for what I believe is right is because a true man, a true warrior does not stop does not surrender until his last breathe has been expended in the defence of the poor, the oppressed and the undefended. His honor and his worth as a person depends on standing up for what is right, no matter what the cost is. If I seem a little old fashioned on this then so be it.

But thank you all for your concern. I must admit I am a bit surprised by it and very touched that I have had this much of a positive impact here. I hope you have a good time and take care. I know I may not have had the best of times recently but I certainly have enjoyed the rest of the time here.

Sincerely,
R.

R, Im glad that you are recoveing.

However, I never in fact questioned why you keep coming back, I in fact said that your health problems can't be blamed on Luigi. If you think your arguements here are really worth risking your last breath over, then more power to you!

For some reason the board where I was going to respond to MikeC gave me this board does not permit public posting when I was goign to post this response.

Fine see it your way. I still feel that by being pushed into loosing my temper by Luigi's insulting comments towards me he done me wrong first.

Why don't I apologiuze first? Because 1: I don't think it would do any good with a person with such a closed and prejudicial mind as Luigi's. And 2: I have no assurances that he will apologize to me for the comments he made towards me and for the treament I have received since the "banning"

You give me an assurance sworn on your blood that I will receive an apology from Luigi for his actions against me then I will apologize to him. Otherwise no deal.

What comments did he make towards you?

I closed the other thread, with an explanation.

I'll probably have to close the whole Sink next week while I am offline.

---

Quote:

You give me an assurance sworn on your blood that I will receive an apology from Luigi for his actions against me then I will apologize to him.

---

Perhaps if R limited himself to just one board?

maybe R needs his own board like Anonymous22 did

Perhaps if R clarified his goals, as "change Luigi's mind" clearly isn't going to happen.

Hey Happy 4th!

Why, yes, I am!

Hey, guys! I'm holding a little vote on the Movies Main board for all interested users. Chime with your vote!