Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
258 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 254 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 140 of 415 (498476)
02-10-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


What's So Hard?
In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

Yes, spontaneous generation. Pasteur's experiments applied to to spontaneous generation; not abiogenesis.

I tell you I don't like jelly beans. You respond by telling me I'm nuts, raisins rule. Fine, Who care? I was talking about jelly beans and am under no obligation to condemn raisins.

You know you can start your own argument with your own definitions, don't you? You don't have to confuse other people's arguments.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 210 of 415 (499017)
02-16-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by traste
02-16-2009 12:00 AM


You are Confused
(Thanks for the suggestion but, I like to do things in my own style.
This isn't style. It's unintelligible rejection of style.

There's a lot of dishonesty among you guys.
Do you not yet realize that your understanding of the English language in not sufficiently acute for you to determine if the person you are conversing with is being disingenuous, or if you are failing to garner what is being said.

After all,the tell-tale sign of lying in English prose is a lack of spaces following punctuation.See.

And they fall in my trick.
No one has fallen for a trick you silly, little troll. You're just failing to understand what it is you're being told.

First those people said that spontaneous genaration should be distinguished from abiogenesis for the reason that abiogenesis implies replication and spontaneous genaration implies living things started to develop from non living things.
No one said this. This is a jumbled interpretation of whatever argument you imagine you're having. Stop, listen and think about what is actually being said, and have that argument instead.

Abiogenesis: One day there was no life. The next day there was. The unspecified thing that happened somewhere in between is abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation: One day some wheat and rags in a box is left in the barn and mice poofed into existence over the course of the next few days.

The first must have happened, the second, ala L. Pasteur, doesn't.

See the logic?
Here's your logic.

Pasteur lived in a world where it was widely held that life sprang whole from disorder and uncleanliness. He thought otherwise and preformed experiments where he created situations where life should arise. In one case he left the situation open to the general environment. In a second case he sealed the situation against the general environment with a mesh fine enough to exclude the expected creature. In cases where extra-experimental critters could sneak in life appeared. In cases where extra-experimental critters were excluded by the mesh no life appeared. From this Pasteur concluded that vermin are not generated spontaneously from filth but attracted by it.

Nothing in Pasteur's experiments could make a determination about life's ultimate origin, and they were not designed to.

And by the way I dont believe that you guys are honest for the reason that you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with evolution.
Well then, you must be a liar a zillion times over because you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with Genesis. (Well, maybe that's a bit rough. You just plain ol' don't know what you're talking about. Not lying per se)

The New Scientist reported that"an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."Yet when one question evolutionary theory some of those scientist come to defend of the theory that they themselves have serious doubts.
As your understanding of the English language is so poor as evidenced by your repeated inability to grasp even the simplest of arguments it would behoove you to report exactly where you got your information. It would be very foolish for anyone to trust your interpretation of what was actually stated. For instance, by "The New Scientist" do you mean "NewScientist"? January 24-30, Pg. 34 maybe even?

For me these kind of attitude is unthinkable.There must be a psychological reason behind these things.
Was this another one of those things that you neglected to put a quote box around? Who said this about you?

Edited by lyx2no, : Correct double nneeggaattiivvee.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:00 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:07 AM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 212 of 415 (499020)
02-16-2009 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by traste
02-16-2009 1:38 AM


A Passel of PRATTS
I have something for you,so that you may gain some insight.
Not everyone is a uninformed as you are. You offer no insite here. Your list has been so often repeated and refuted the acronym PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand TimeS)has been applied to them.

The probability of life origanating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unbridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
Yeah! And a mechanic in a shop and a tornado in a junk yard have the same odds of putting together an engine by your math.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 1:38 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:24 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 254 by traste, posted 03-30-2009 8:09 AM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 215 of 415 (499027)
02-16-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by traste
02-16-2009 2:07 AM


You are Easily Confused
Would you please give some clear cut explanation?Let me ask you,what Pasteur did or what did he mean when he said "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"
What he meant was that never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by his simple experiment. He was likely correct.

The confusion is yours of what spontaneous generation is. Can I define spontaneous generation as "kissing ones sister" and argue Pasteur showed incest to be impossible?

AbE:

You are correct english is not my first language.But it does not mean that I dont understand english .Some of my grammar is wrong because of carelessness and pressure.
If you know this don't you think it's a bit rich to be calling people liars when misunderstanding is so likely?

Magsige man kag lipat lipat doi sakpan naka oi angkon na lang gyod.
What a horrible thing to say. I spit on you.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:07 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:35 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 219 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:38 AM lyx2no has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 218 of 415 (499030)
02-16-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by traste
02-16-2009 2:24 AM


Re: A Passel of PRATTS
I dont know what you are talking about.Uninformed?
Sort of makes my, point don't you think?

…but you are only good in assertions.
What evidence would you require of me to prove to you that your English isn't top notch?

So go ahead show me a house that builds to a process that tears down.
You keep swearing at me in Bulgarian and I'll report you.

Show me a house with a metabolism and reproductive cycle and I see what I can do for you.

Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:24 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:41 AM lyx2no has taken no action
 Message 232 by traste, posted 03-17-2009 1:59 AM lyx2no has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 221 of 415 (499033)
02-16-2009 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by traste
02-16-2009 2:35 AM


Re: You are Easily Confused
Spontaneous genaration is the idea that a living thing is come from a non living thing isnt it?
For the umpteenth time, NO!

Thanking Bluejay in Message 136:

Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about how organisms reproduce. It suggested that some animal reproduction (ontogeny) was accomplished by the environment, instead of by sex or cell division. That is, some animals were born from leaf litter, water, rotting carcasses or dirt. This concept calls for a mechanism that allows decaying matter to be transformed into an animal by means of a pre-existing template.

Abiogenesis is the common idea underlying many hypotheses about the origin of the very first life form. In simplest terms, "abiogenesis" basically means that, at some point, there was a first life form, and, since no life predated that life form, that life form could only have come from something other than a pre-existing life form. This concept has no templates: it is a haphazard compilation of random elements into something workable.

At least pretend that you read what others write.

Would you say that I am wrong because english is not my first language?
I say you're wrong because "spontaneous generation" has a meaning that you are ignoring for reasons known only to you, which introduces nothing but confusion.

Even if I have a point you will easily refute that point by saying english is not your first language that is why you dont understand.
I'd enjoy very much if you made a point. I live to gain new understanding. Matter of fact, if I ever make lots of money on some kind of block buster invention I'll leave the money to a foundation in my will that grants an annual prize to the best scientific discoveries in half a dozen disciplines. But they'll have to do better then a PRATT


AbE: to messages 219 and 220.

Firstly, you waste a lot of space with three words per posts.

Secondly, I don't even know if it is a language. Awful silly to pretend I understand what it is well enough to accuse you of stuff when I don't even know if it's a language, hun? At least I understand that.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:35 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 3:22 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 247 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 10:48 PM lyx2no has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 223 of 415 (499078)
02-16-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by traste
02-16-2009 3:22 AM


The Spat's Phat But…
(You have a lot of digareement with your sentence,you said before that I dont understand simply because english is not my first language and now you are giving me a different reason?And you even post some words to test my understanding in english.what a great liar you are?)
As a fact I would not know why you are unable to understand even the simplest of points. My suggestion that your unfamiliarity with the English language could be the barrier was giving you the benefit of the doubt. There is currently no evidence that you're not just an idiot, and a case could be made that you are. For sake of clarity I'm willing to recant my prior reasons and attribute your profound inability to grasp simple concepts to you being a complete and utter butt wipe.

what a great liar you are?
English tip of the day: Your preceding sentence is not interrogatory but declarative. It should end in a period. I'm more then willing to show patience with your poor use of English, but you must also take it into account with the problems we're having communicating.

Now, while I enjoy the ragfest, we need to straighten out why you insist on equating "spontaneous generation" with "abiogenesis".

In a argument if the first party (P1) express a distaste for jelly beans the second party (P2) cannot define jelly bean as peanut M&M's and then say P1 expressed a distaste for peanut M&M's. P1 did not. For the P2's statement to be true P2 must imply the same thing with the term "jelly bean" as did P1: even if P1 was referring to Raisinettes.

P2 can argue that definitions need to be clarified, of course, but not if P1 is dead. In the instant argument P1 is L. Pasteur. When LP made his statement he very well may have unwisely defined "spontaneous generation", but everybody is stuck with that because LP is now dead.

Furthermore, You keep defining SP as life coming from non-life. Pasteur used meat broth in his experiments. Currently dead, but not non-life. So your definition doesn't even agree with your definition.

Edited by lyx2no, : Correct patients per cavediver.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 3:22 AM traste has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 02-16-2009 4:04 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 226 of 415 (499094)
02-16-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver
02-16-2009 4:04 PM


Re: The Spat's Phat But…
Show them what, exactly? When critiquing one's use of language, please ensure one's own is exemplary
Ah! you misunderstand. I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 02-16-2009 4:04 PM cavediver has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by traste, posted 03-17-2009 2:04 AM lyx2no has taken no action
 Message 248 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 10:58 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 252 of 415 (504112)
03-24-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by traste
03-23-2009 10:58 PM


Is "traste" the Bulgarian Word for Lame-o?
Snappy comebacks sort of lose their snap eventually. Let me see, March 23 minus February 16 that's… Ok 28 days in February; so, 28-16=12, and 12+23=35… Ok… So, if I got the math right, you're, like, 39 days past the best if used by date.

And that's still not as lame as your "Pasteur disproved abiogenesis" argument.

Edited by lyx2no, : Had to correct some less then exemplarily English.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 10:58 PM traste has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by cavediver, posted 03-25-2009 2:57 AM lyx2no has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 257 of 415 (504546)
03-30-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by traste
03-30-2009 8:09 AM


You've Forced My Hand
I don't see any experiment refute that thing.
I am unable to respond because I am unable or unwilling to put in the effort to determine what "that thing" is.

An engine formed by blind force is ridicoulousssss!!!!!
Yes, it is. That is why it doesn't work as an analogy to anything anyone is saying. The first life was not a random event. Atoms and molecules won't join up in any ol' fashion as a box of auto parts will. O2 and 2H2s will with almost no encouragement form into 2H2O.


Peek for the hidden message.
Also your arguments bear the acronym PRABTS
Pratt works because it is an homonym of the English word "Prat: an incompetent, stupid, or foolish person; an idiot." If "PRABT" is Bulgarian for "eater of dingleberrys" I shall be truly stung.

However, I didn't want to have to go there but… The acronym that applies to you is PROHTMTMFTBOTWTTENPNK: Points Refuted One Hundred Times More Then Mine, From The Beginning Of The World To The End, Padlock — No Key. Snap!


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by traste, posted 03-30-2009 8:09 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by traste, posted 06-28-2009 8:44 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 279 of 415 (513457)
06-28-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by traste
06-28-2009 8:44 PM


Since I was a Wee Bairn
I have lived that I may someday discover the gene responsible for hemorrhoids just so I could name it "Upyores". This was the thought of a child. I now know it only right and proper that I name it "traste"

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by traste, posted 06-28-2009 8:44 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by traste, posted 06-28-2009 10:30 PM lyx2no has taken no action
 Message 281 by traste, posted 06-28-2009 10:43 PM lyx2no has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 284 of 415 (513464)
06-28-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Theodoric
06-28-2009 10:47 PM


Re: Re:hello!
He got you, Theodoric: hemorrhoids are environmental, not genetic, and you never called me on it

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Theodoric, posted 06-28-2009 10:47 PM Theodoric has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 333 of 415 (514298)
07-05-2009 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by traste
07-05-2009 9:56 PM


Pasteur Was Right
Pasteur announced that "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow stuck by this simple experiment."
And all who define "spontaneous generation" in the same way Pasteur did are justified in agreeing with him. The generation of paramecium will not be a result of stagnant, straw soup, or any such simplistic, mess→mouse belief of the day. If you find a detractor, by all means, have an argument with him. However, no one here is disagreeing with Pasture.

What is currently meant by "abiogenesis" is that life derived from non-life. It is generally believed that self-driven cycles of chemical reactions very gradually became more efficient, complex and self-contained through imperfect replication and the more efficient reactions getting the lion's share of the limited resources. This is what you need to supply an argument against.

Supplying an argument against this, however, isn't going to be easy. Primarily due to the hypothesis being so vague. While there are a lot of bits and pieces that would fit into the hypothesis, it is not known if any of them did. You can discover as a fact that X could not possibly have occurred, but all that will do is eliminate X as one of the possible steps used by Mother Nature to get from non-life to life.

But if it eases your mind any, no one is saying they know how it did happened. All that it is possible to say so far is that there are no known chemical reactions involved in life that violate what is known about chemistry or physics. This gives comfort to naturalist-with-pants who some day hope to understand how life came to be. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that all the chemical reactions involved in life aren't know either, so maybe there's an insurmountable barrier to a naturalistic explanation yet: cross your fingers.

This statement remains true today since no laboratory model was able to produce that living thing is from non living thing.
Pasteur's statement remains true to this day because it is true. But read again the above qualifier.

And if you ask me whether abiogenesis is spontaneous genaration my answer is yes.
It's unlikely anyone will ask, so feel free to volunteer that little gem.

In general what does abiogenesis holds? In general what does spontaneous genaration holds? Are they not holding that life is came from non - life? So as you think best what is the difference?
Yes, it is held that life came from non-life. Yes, it is held that life came from non-life. And, ironically, the difference has been explained to you multiple times.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 9:56 PM traste has taken no action

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 354 of 415 (514410)
07-07-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by traste
07-07-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Hi traste

I don't know how to enable the html.
One does not need to be able to enable html. One merely has to type in the square bracket characters, "[" and "]", which are to be found next to the "P" key on your board. Between those characters you enter your instruction; i.e., "color=violet". Note: Do not include the quotation marks. One closes the instruction by adding a slash "/" following the first square bracket. In the "peek" mode my violet colored sentence above looks like this:

[color=violet]Note: Do not include the quotation marks.[/color]

Note: In the preceding sentence, as you can see in the "peek" mode, I've used Unicode to make the square brackets so that the computer will know I want it to print square brackets and not apply dBCode.

Open instruction with:[instruction=X]

Close instruction with:[/instruction]

While in the reply mode, note the "dBCodes On (help)" legend to the left of the reply space. Click on the light blue "help" button and there is a list of instructions to be applied.

Regarding quote boxes, "=x" applies if one wishes to including the source:

[qs=traste]you are sack fungus, lyz20n.[/qs] returns:

traste writes:

you are sack fungus, lyz20n.

Note: This can be distinguished from a genuine quote by the comma proceeding the direct address.


traste writes:

Your co supporeters here have billions of character assasination,I only dance with them. Lynx2n0 is an exemplary example of them.

Surely I thank you for the recognition. I do admit that I get an inordinate sense of joy from your discomfort; however, I would suffer a greater glee if we could get past our current, intellectual impasse. That is, of course, with me being the hero-of-the-hour and you seeing the light of reason.

Let me try a different tract.

I am talking to a friend of mine on a train. You are sitting behind us and over hear our conversation:

"Yesterday," I say to my friend. "was the best day in the history of the world. Never have I so enjoyed myself at a dog show."

"You're right there." Replies my friend. "That little, brown dog was the funniest thing I've seen in ages."

Angrily you spin around in your seat "How can say such thing? My death of little brown dog yesterday, was not show; and you find funny make you are sick men."

We are not defining the same event. Though some of the language of our event can fit into your event, the particulars are very different. We are actually both in agreement. We very much are sorry about your dear dog; and you and your little, brown dog would have very much enjoyed the dog show. We have no argument.

Spontaneous generation is in deed a form of abiogenesis; but, it is not the only form of abiogenesis. God making Adam from the dust of the Earth is a form of abiogenesis (making proper note of RAZD's objection to including the supernatural in what is best meant by abiogenesis). Most importantly, Pasteur did not mean to include every kind of abiogenesis in his statement about putting spontaneous generation to bed once and for all. Do you intend for Pasteur to put Genesis 2:7 to bed? It would, after all, be a nearer fit to what Pasteur meant.

Furthermore, this whole spontaneous generation/abiogenesis equivalency is a secondary argument. You need the two to be equivalent so that you might make the argument that there are facts presentable against the current theory of abiogenesis.

If, once It had been explained that my friend and I had spent the previous day at Westminster, you do not quickly begin to understand that she (the first to suggest that the likelihood of a girl accompanying me on a train makes my story hard to follow gets it in the nose) and I hold no malice toward your little dog then there is paltry hope that the larger argument, wherein thought veritably has to be imposed, has a resolution.

I wish you luck.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Why is it that these things are glaring after one submits?

Edited by lyx2no, : Fix an almost unintelligible sentence.

Edited by lyx2no, : Now i'm just being picky capitalizing the first letter after "Note:".


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 5:34 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 10:17 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3990 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 359 of 415 (514470)
07-07-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by traste
07-07-2009 10:17 PM


Congratulations, You Quoter, You
See it does not work.

I assure you, it did work on this end. The quote "Hi traste" is in a quote box. What do you see on your screen? What do you expect to see? Do you expect to see a quote box around the quotes on the reply screen? It doesn't, nor is it supposed to. In the reply box you get what you type. The quote box appears in the preview and post only. In the peek mode I can see that you have done it correctly.

Regardless, it did work.

A few tips.

  • If you follow your quotes in the reply space with a double space before your response it is a lot easier to see errors in your formating. The extra spaces won't show on your post.
  • Base your paragraphs on ease of reading (4-8 lines) or completion of a single idea; which ever is shorter.
  • The repeated aphorisms separated by a short, gray line at the bottom of many posts are called signatures. You can select a signature for yourself in your profile page. Then others won't confuse them for a current argument. Don't you confuses them either.
  • You come off as a jerk. I'm fine with that.
  • I am a jerk. Get over it.

AbE: Just looked at your next post; excellent job. I'm taking the credit for it. I'm the hero-of-the-hour and you're not.

Edited by lyx2no, : My original was confused.

Edited by lyx2no, : AbE:


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 10:17 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 11:25 PM lyx2no has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022