Where have all the flowers gone

[Marilyn Manson]

Has anyone heard anything from skiddy?

His last post was on the 18th of last month.

I texted him this afternoon, and have recieved no reply.

[Nantoz]

Presumably a young girl picked him up.

[Kurashima]

Wasnt he due to go "On Manouevers" again sometime soon?

[JonnyBGood]

Did you block up his airhole in the gimp cage again MM?

[Marilyn Manson]

The only thing that was "on manouevers" last time I saw him was his penis. (Enby knows what I'm talking about.)

[Nantoz]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Did you block up his airhole in the gimp cage again MM?

MM is Zed? This is news indeed.

[Yahwe]

mortals die.


on the bright side



they make good compost

[Deffeh]

i texted him a couple of days ago to invite him to glasgow, but he said he couldnt make it because of work.

hes alive, folks

[Nantoz]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

mortals die.
t

This is what's called a tautology.

Next you will perhaps tell us that rain is wet.

[Yahwe]

I fail to see what is tautologous

perhaps you will enlighten us?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nantoz

This is what's called a tautology.

Next you will perhaps tell us that rain is wet.

i would consider one of those as have tautalogous character but not the other. but that's just me.

[Nantoz]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I fail to see what is tautologous

perhaps you will enlighten us?

Is this a bad attempt at a joke?

A mortal is defined as one who is liable to death.
It is included in the definition that mortals die.
To state that mortals die, is a tautology, because:

a tautology is a needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundacy.

Have you been enlightened?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nantoz

a tautology is a needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundacy.

a tautology is two propositions which are identical, there similarity making the second proposition redundant:

ie. "either you will win that race, or you won't"

see? that is a tautology.

mortals die is one proposition of fact.

there is no redundancy,

it is perhaps an unexciting or even commonly know proposition. but it is not tautologous.

why do you do this to yourself?

you smash yourself as a wave upon my eternal rock.

why?

[Nantoz]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

a tautology is two propositions which are identical, there similarity making the second proposition redundant:

ie. "either you will win that race, or you won't"

see? that is a tautology.

mortals die is one proposition of fact.

there is no redundancy,

it is perhaps an unexciting or even commonly know proposition. but it is not tautologous.

why do you do this to yourself?

you smash yourself as a wave upon my eternal rock.

why?

Are you serious about this?
I was under the impression that you were educated.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In logic, a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.

This is one definition of tautology, which you seem to belive is the only one, but:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In linguistics, a tautology is a redundancy due to superfluous qualification.

A linguistic tautology is often a fault of style. It was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice". For example, "three-part trilogy" is tautologous because a trilogy, by definition, has three parts. "Significant milestone" and "significant landmark" are also, if less obviously, tautologous, because milestones and landmarks are again significant by definition (could one imagine an "insignificant landmark"?).

[Yahwe]

you appear confused.

a tautology is 2 identical propositions (as i said)

you are write. "a three part trilogy" is a tautology (kudos to you)

do you follow?

it is litterally saying the same thing twice

the phrase 'mortals die' is a definition. a statement of fact.

one

proposition

let's count. one. easy. not two.

i didn't expect the knowledge that mortals die to cause an upsurge of emotion. yet again i underestimate jonny foreigner.

you could easily have replied with 'duh' or 'pull the other one' or 'tell us something we don't know'

instead you chose to say it was a tautology.

it isn't.

what i said wasn't exciting. it wasn't supposed to be. but it was not tautologous.

goodness.

you are as troublesome as a classroom full of people who have to wear mittens all year round.

[Nantoz]

*sigh.

I have admitted to being wrong on occasion, learn to do the same Yahwe.

A tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative,
Agreed?

Saying that " a triology has three parts" is tautologic, because by it's very defininiton a triology has three parts.
Likewise, to be mortal, by it's very definition means that one will at some point die. Thus "mortals die" is a tautology.

[Yahwe]

oh goodness

you replied.

i have explained reality in frankly excessive detail.

well. i suppose you deserve credit for replying without reading what i posted.

I suppose one should congratulate determination. no matter how misguided or blind.

tell me, as i grow tired of you, "in the land you live in" is 'frogs are amphibians' a tautology?




i thought not.


xxx

[Nantoz]

You make me smile, Yahwe.

In the strictest sence of the word "frogs are amphibians" is indeed a tautology.
Like "parents who have children", or "bachelors are unmarried".

Read this about redundancy

[Yahwe]

mortals die. birds have feathers. cabs are expensive. champagne has bubbles. tall men from essex are sexually attractive. norwegians are dim. mittens have no fingers. cats have fur. ardvarks eat ants. japanese maples have red leaves.

there is no 'strict sense'

by your 'sense' (and goodness knows it is far from that) the dictionary is a list of tautologies.


i thought the norwegians could get no lower.

i am now pleasently surprised.

(it has now [thanks to our foreign friends] gone so far off topic that if stewart ever reads this and feels offended that i suggested you where dead. i can with all honesty say. they make me wish i was.)

[*donkie*]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

mortals die. birds have feathers. cabs are expensive. champagne has bubbles. tall men from essex are sexually attractive. norwegians are dim. mittens have no fingers. cats have fur. ardvarks eat ants. japanese maples have red leaves.

there is no 'strict sense'

The strict sense is if I can imagine the contrary to be true. I can't imagine someone who is immortal to die, whereas I can imagine a cab to be inexpensive. I can also imagine plenty of tall men from essex who aren't sexually attractive. etc etc.

EIther way, I don't care. I just want skiddy to make a marvellous return.

And now I'm going to bed before I puke everything in my stomach again. Hooray for random illness!

[Yahwe]

knock yourself out kid

[SilverSmoke]

Originally Posted by Nantoz

MM is Zed?

Zed is dead

[Nantoz]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

Zed is dead

I want the chopper!

[SYMM]

Nantoz: you're wrong. Shh.
Yahwe: ignore him and drink gin, it'll be much more fun.

[Stew]

Back on topic, bizarrely I was thinking the same thing yesterday MM.

[KoeN]

brits are ignorant.

thank you yahwe for proving my point, again.

[Tomkat]

Nantoz was right in that it is a tautology.
He was also wrong in not understanding that there is more than one situation where tautology can be used.
But then so was Yahwe.

So you're both being shit.

Your mission to redeem yourselves, is to go and locate our lost comrade, skiddy!

[roadrunner_0]

he went on holiday, i think he is back now, but im not sure

[hyfe]

in this thread Yahwe was worryingly stupid.

[DukePaul]

Nantoz and Yahwe gets along like a house on fire.


Flames, people running around screaming, an excited crowd watching...

[JamMak]

Continuing the off-topic tangent...
"parents who have children", "bachelors are unmarried".
I can actually see a big difference between these two statements.

In the first, you are specifying a subset of parents; those who have children. By the definition of parents, they all have children therefore the specification of the subset is reduntant.
Bachelors are unmarried is merely a statemtnt of fact.

The difference can be seen in that "bachelors are unmarried" is a sentance, whereas "parents who have children" is not.

As to the original argument, I think this makes Yahme correct.

..it pains me to say that

Edit:
For example, Wiki said "a three part trilogy" was a tautology. You said "a triology has three parts" was a tautology.
See the difference?

[roadrunner_0]

when did this forum get this pedantic?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JamMak

Continuing the off-topic tangent...
"parents who have children", "bachelors are unmarried".
I can actually see a big difference between these two statements.

In the first, you are specifying a subset of parents; those who have children. By the definition of parents, they all have children therefore the specification of the subset is reduntant.
Bachelors are unmarried is merely a statemtnt of fact.

The difference can be seen in that "bachelors are unmarried" is a sentance, whereas "parents who have children" is not.

As to the original argument, I think this makes Yahme correct.

..it pains me to say that

Edit:
For example, Wiki said "a three part trilogy" was a tautology. You said "a triology has three parts" was a tautology.
See the difference?

thank you.

those two examples are perfect. and i am glad you have seen the difference.

RR i only questioned nantoz's pedantry towards me, but if it makes you feel better, i got neg rep'd to hell while doing it

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by JamMak

Continuing the off-topic tangent...
"parents who have children", "bachelors are unmarried".
I can actually see a big difference between these two statements.

In the first, you are specifying a subset of parents; those who have children. By the definition of parents, they all have children therefore the specification of the subset is reduntant.
Bachelors are unmarried is merely a statemtnt of fact.

The difference can be seen in that "bachelors are unmarried" is a sentance, whereas "parents who have children" is not.

Remove the who, and you will have exactly the same. What you just wrote is just retoric, not much else.

To be a parent, you must have children. To be a bachelor, you must be single.
Both words imply certaint things.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Remove the who, and you will have exactly the same. What you just wrote is just retoric, not much else.

To be a parent, you must have children. To be a bachelor, you must be single.
Both words imply certaint things.

you are right

words can mean ANYTHING

all you have to do is change their order or add a few extra ones and you get a completely different meaning

and what's the deal with letters???

it's almost as though the order you put them in matters.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. but if you call it a 'giraffe' people start getting all confused. just because you changed a few letters.

[JamMak]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

thank you.

those two examples are perfect. and i am glad you have seen the difference.

RR i only questioned nantoz's pedantry towards me, but if it makes you feel better, i got neg rep'd to hell while doing it

Yeah, I wanted to neg-rep the hell out of you for being pedantic too, but then I looked and realised you did actually have a (rather pedantic) point.

I became awash with guilt.... or something

[Yahwe]

then you can be happy.

i was right.

but i was still neg rep'd a new arse hole

[JamMak]

Obviously didn't make that much difference.
You still "single handedly make these forums a better place" by all accounts

[Yahwe]

good god, don't think that my rep will affect them

it is like someone has put speed into the drinking water of a special school

we don't just face retards. we face retards with energy.

and if we are really lucky.

we face retards with energy who don't speak english

[JamMak]

(You must spread some rep... etc.)

[SYMM]

I like it when people are happy, rep to all involved etc.