🚀 go-pugleaf

txred wrote:
> 
> Terence wrote:
> >
> > wendy c wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <33EBD194.2C2C@is3.nyu.edu>
> > > Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > wendy c wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> [on including 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?
> 
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > someone for everyone is also a phrase that has been used heterosexually
> > in the past.
> 
> 'gay' is a word that has been used heterosexually in the
> past.  your point?
> 
> 'everyone' includes, well... everyone.
> 
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > In economics they make economic models that adhere to one point of view
> > or the other.
> 
> and they define their terms and their assumptions in
> advance of the discussion.
> 

Not really. Tell the republicans and democrats about that. Or study some
economics. They may even include some groups, but they often leave out
others.

> > > please, feel free to ignore any posts, ideas, or realities of life
> > > you choose.
> 
> > As you do? No thank you. I will not ignore anything, but there was only
> > two people mentioned in the original post. Men and women. No other
> > groups, so your addendum is really unnecessary and unwarranted. It said
> > men and women.
> 
> first, i wasn't the first or the only participant in this thread
> to point out that large groups of people were missing from your
> 'analysis'.
> 
> second, here is the entire text of the original post (except
> the headers and the sig):
> 
> *****
>      I've heard it said that there's someone for everyone, but I've
>      never seen a proof of it.  Is there a mathematically-oriented
>      person here who would like to try it?  Here, I'll help:
> 
>       .
>      . .  there's someone for everyone
> 
>      fill in the previous steps, now that I've provided the
>      "Therefore" and the conclusion. <grin>  It's an exercise
>      for the student!  Yeah, that's what it is!
> *****
> 
> perhaps you could highlight the portion where it mentioned
> males, females, or heterosexuality.
> 
Quick and smart, aren't we? No reference to the people involved that the
first responders assumed, I see. So please explain why you had to be
included after the discussion was underway?


So, why didn't you post, or anyone else for that matter, sooner? No one
did, they just tried to add to groups that we discussed - men to women.
Try the other posts that said not that group. Try those that led to the
mention of other groups, they said men and women. To explain myself I
should have said, the person that originally posted the message said at
a later point ....

> > Realism? Do you want to be realistic? Consider that Everyone has a
> > mother and a father - you tell me the realism there. Anything else is
> > just sex.
> 
> are you suggesting that 'someone for everyone' only applies
> to people who intend to reproduce?
> 
> > You want realism? How many gays were tired before their discovery? How
> > many were convinced that love can be anything - which is what the
> > message is now.
> 
> take it easy, pumpkin.  you're starting to unravel.
> 

No I'm not, I'm making a point concerning real life.

> as i said before, you are free to have any opinion you want
> about gays.  i have not stated an opinion on the subject.  i
> am talking about logic and free speech.
> 

But you aren't, nothing was stated until after people started conversing
about men and women, ignore the relevant posts all you want. There is
free speech, just like we have the option to say that we don't want to
consider that category. Or are you saying that our rights do not extend
that far?

> wendy c
> --
> to multiply the harbors does not reduce the sea
> -- e. dickinson