Discuss all things Wolfire (or not)
https://forums.wolfire.com/
...Why limit yourself to the visible spectrum?Assaultman67 wrote: In that case, I choose every visible spectrum of light except the #800080 purple ...
You're kind of silly. Where do you come up with such silly theories? I don't see how troll = piece of shit.Assaultman67 wrote:Bragging about being the best piece of shit isn't exactly as enraging as it is pitiful ...
Which is even more pitiful when I actually think you and renegade are the same person
Edit: Then again, you do have a different font color than Renegade ... something in which im not sure he would have thought through.
Stop utilizing your moral-based bullshit as an argumentative tool. Any sort of intellectual conversation usually involves conflict and to conclude that the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism is absolutely idiotic and absurd. Way to be Leibniz's successor...although he, unlike yourself, was highly intelligent and is the father of calculus--he was just a tad misguisded.Assaultman67 wrote:If you have the time, and the attitude to purposefully go out and cause conflict ... that's pretty synonymous with "you are a piece of shit" ... lol
The real question is where do you draw the line between trolls and people who like to tease? ... hmm indeed ...
I find that I was wrong about this guy. He's actually kind of awesome.RobLikesBrunch wrote:Stop utilizing your moral-based bullshit as an argumentative tool. Any sort of intellectual conversation usually involves conflict and to conclude that the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism is absolutely idiotic and absurd. Way to be Leibniz's successor...although he, unlike yourself, was highly intelligent and is the father of calculus--he was just a tad misguisded.
Fuck you and your stupid bullshit and your moral unrighteousness. You're the type of guy that spews out shit like "OH THAT WAS RUDE. HOW BAD OF YOU" -- completely fixed on the social conventions & notions that you're subject to rather than recognizing and understanding the shaky and ludicrous foundation they're based upon and exploiting to your advantage & only when necessary.
It is? Well that's rather paradoxical, you're saying trolls are a piece of shit, and in doing so attempting to troll said trolls while saying those trolls are pieces of shit for trolling. That's just fucked up. You're mean.Assaultman67 wrote:If you have the time, and the attitude to purposefully go out and cause conflict ... that's pretty synonymous with "you are a piece of shit" ... lol
Oh, you are so wrong with that. Concluding something like 'the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism' is neither idiotic nor absurd. Neither to him, nor to me and you. Using axioms that will bring you to these conclusions and the monotonicity of the deduction method maybe is, but the concluding itself isn't. I would guess that was, what Leibniz did wrong. You wouldn't suggest, that your so called 'father of calculus' strayed from the correctness of his own "invented" proof methods, which brings me to the second point to criticize.RobLikesBrunch wrote: Stop utilizing your moral-based bullshit as an argumentative tool. Any sort of intellectual conversation usually involves conflict and to conclude that the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism is absolutely idiotic and absurd.
If you would know shit about calculus, you would know that not Leibniz was the father of calculus, Newton was. Leibniz just plagiarized Newton's results and in an effort of Germany to get back at England got away with it in German history books. And now he is even credited for it by people like you.RobLikesBrunch wrote:Way to be Leibniz's successor...although he, unlike yourself, was highly intelligent and is the father of calculus--he was just a tad misguisded.
"If you would know shit about calculus, you would know that" there is significant evidence that the two developed calculus independently with Leibniz starting with integration and Newtown starting with derivation. Then, of course, you may know that the two are tied together via the FTC.tokage wrote:Oh, you are so wrong with that. Concluding something like 'the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism' is neither idiotic nor absurd. Neither to him, nor to me and you. Using axioms that will bring you to these conclusions and the monotonicity of the deduction method maybe is, but the concluding itself isn't. I would guess that was, what Leibniz did wrong. You wouldn't suggest, that your so called 'father of calculus' strayed from the correctness of his own "invented" proof methods, which brings me to the second point to criticize.RobLikesBrunch wrote: Stop utilizing your moral-based bullshit as an argumentative tool. Any sort of intellectual conversation usually involves conflict and to conclude that the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism is absolutely idiotic and absurd.If you would know shit about calculus, you would know that not Leibniz was the father of calculus, Newton was. Leibniz just plagiarized Newton's results and in an effort of Germany to get back at England got away with it in German history books. And now he is even credited for it by people like you.RobLikesBrunch wrote:Way to be Leibniz's successor...although he, unlike yourself, was highly intelligent and is the father of calculus--he was just a tad misguisded.