🚀 go-pugleaf

wendy c wrote:
> 
> In article <33EBD194.2C2C@is3.nyu.edu>
> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > wendy c wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33E930D8.5DEA@is3.nyu.edu>
> >> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >>[on considering groups other than hetersexuals in considering the
> hypothesis "there is someone for everyone"]
> >> > Every thing was going so smooth, why did you have to bring this up?  Why
> >> > must everything involve this?
> >>
> >> because it is implicit in the original hypothesis.  the set of
> >> 'everyone' includes people of every sexual inclination,
> >> as well as celibate priests and nuns, polygamists, children,
> >> and homophobic internet geeks.
> >>
> >
> > Not true, it does not matter past the way the hypothesis was meant to be
> > shaped.
> 
> the original poster proposed a pseudo-mathematical proof of
> a broad and vague theorem.  the phrase 'someone for' cannot be
> defined rigorously, so it is impossible to approach such a proof
> rigorously -- since it was all in fun, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> the term 'everyone', on the other hand, can be subjected to
> mathematical scrutiny and means the set of all individuals.
> 
> > They do it in economics, he can do it here.
> 
> in economics, they define their terms and state their premises
> prior to the discussion.  if experts in the field of economics
> defined their terms by way of context, they would be taken
> about as seriously as fortune tellers, astrologers, and people
> who guess your weight at the carnival.
> 
> >  Besides the
> > original writer saying that he is not concerned with this group - there
> > are only two sexes, those that make ova, and are called women, and those
> > that produce sperm, those that are called men.
> 
> a:  thread drift
> b:  the original writer did not state that heterosexuality was a
> fundamental premise.
> 
> > Homophobic internet geeks?  I haven't met any of them. Maybe you are a
> > heterosexually challenged female that is scared that if the sperm met
> > the egg, and you had a kid, you wouldn't know what to do.
> 
> or maybe i am a mother of three with a mathematics background
> who doesn't care much for faulty logic.
> 
> > What set you
> > off? A boyfriend treat you badly? Or if not you, a friend of yours?
> 
> no, what 'set me off' was a closed-minded remark, and an attempt
> to dictate what people may or may not discuss in a public forum.
> 
> > I don't care what you do, but I will not read a lie being spread as the
> > truth, religiously, and this thread did not include them.  That has been
> > explained and proven as a fact.  What I can't speak anymore without
> > having to include them?  I think I can. That doesn't make anyone
> > homophobic, that means they want the friends that they want, or want to
> > talk as they want.
> 
> please, feel free to ignore any posts, ideas, or realities of life
> you choose.
> 
> wendy c
> 
> I'm an ad man, not a red herring!
> -- Cary Grant in 'North by Northwest'
>wrong assumtion,  it is mathematically possible to define "someone for".