Saturday, June 23, 2012

Bumping into...



Living in San Antonio TX, a military city, it's not uncommon for me to literally 'bump' into American servicemen who have fought (or are still fighting) in Iraq (and other parts of the world). This was a US Air Force pilot who was part of both Desert Storm and the recent Iraq war and was proud of it. 

124 comments:

Indigo said...

To be honest, I cannot begin to imagine what it would feel like to live among those who took part in an illegal invasion of my country, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, deployed illegal weapons in Fallujah (eg depleted uranium), dispersed families across the globe, and thus allowed fundamentalists to flourish in place of what had been a liberal and functioning society.

As you may be aware, former prime minister Tony Blair is not being allowed to forget his role in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Individuals keep popping up unexpectedly (eg at the Leveson Inquiry) and telling him he is a war criminal.

Anonymous said...

This is the theme that plays in my head.

JG said...

Well said, Rachel.

Blair is a criminal, we know this, but it is comforting to know he will never be able to safely walk down any street in the world as long as the miserable bastard lives.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "…it's not uncommon for me to literally 'bump' into
      American servicemen who have fought…in Iraq.
"

Literally’ you say?  You been known to give ‘em a ‘bump’ now and again, have ya?  ; )
Jokes aside, it's probably almost universal that soldiers want to believe they've fought for a good cause.  Given your evolution on the question of the war against Saddam, it must be hard at times to keep your own counsel when you run across a earnest American soldier being publicly proud of his ‘contribution’ to the cause.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Today's entry re:  American politics:

The author here is known to be an unabashed liberal, but she does make a good point there at the end.  The Republican Party conservative leaders aren't afraid to cross up their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.  They are afraid to cross Glenn Hannibaugh and their wing-nut crazy Tea-bagger crowd, but they're not afraid to cross Mitt Romney.
Reinforces a point I made some days ago…  Romney almost certainly knows better than the foolishness he's been peddling on the campaign trail, but it doesn't matter that he knows better.  If elected he'll find himself already securely bound to the right-wing crazie economic theories and to their ‘liberty’ agenda.  (Which agenda confuses unfettered laissez-faire corporate capitalism (which used to be called just that but no longer is) with what used to be called ‘free market capitalism’.)
Romney's sold out to the right-wingers, and they'll own him after the election, if he's the winner.  And they know it; they've already decided who's got the whip hand in that relationship.  They're not at all afraid of him.

Petes said...

^ The author here is known to be an unabashed troll.

Petes said...

Zeyad, why do you have rosary beads hanging from your rearview mirror? :-)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "^ The author here is known to be an unabashed troll."

No doubt you'd prefer that posting to be taken as an example of me trolling you.  Might not work out that way for ya though.  Might be folks'll notice that you didn't actually have anything to say on the subject I raised.  And then they'll maybe draw a conclusion ‘bout who's trolling whom that may be different than you might have wanted them to come to.

(And I don't think Arabs call ‘em ‘rosary’ beads.)

Zeyad said...

Petey, just a symbol of where I come from. We call them sibha in Arabic, which is derived from the noun tasbih (to mention God's name).

Petes said...

Is your car owned or shared with a religiously observant person? Or is it common to have religious symbols as a memento of home? Or have you taken up religion? ;-)

Over here you might occasionally see someone with rosary beads on their mirror or dashboard, but unless they're practicing, it would be more common to have furry dice or some such. (Up in Lee C's neck of the woods they can put you in jail for that... must be a lot of po-faced folks up that direction ;-)

Petes said...

[Troll]: "you didn't actually have anything to say on the subject I raised"

This may be news to you, so listen up. I don't feel duty bound to say anything about anything you raise. No idea what you're talking about in this instance.

If it's the "new types of nuclear reactions" thing, then get over it -- it's completely correct, for reasons more complicated than yer furious Googlin' have turned up so far. You can deal with your "alternate fuel" booboo on yer own, ain't nuthin' to do with me.

Meanwhile y'all will no doubt be hoping we quickly forget about:

[Troll]: "The orbital distance increases as the mass of the central body drops and the ‘orbital speed’ remains the same."

^ Hint for y'all: that's wrong. Badly, stupidly, completely wrong. Warned y'all you'd only get upset if y'all took on the question but y'all paid no never mind.

[Troll]: "What will happen instead is that, long before the sun has lost half its mass, the mass that it does lose, and the gravity that it does lose along with that mass, will allow the surface layers of the sun to expand greatly... Our yellowish sun WILL turn into a ‘red giant’. " (emphasis mine)

Another hint for y'all: that's wrong too, in spite of y'all pretendin' to forget what the use of past and future tense means in English. Sun-sized stars that WILL become red giants don't lose appreciable mass before that. They are not "allowed" to swell up by their lower gravity -- that's got nothin' whatever to do with it.

Don't know why I bother with this. Already showed ya up to be a stupid liar on a previous technical thread that y'all eventually just wouldn't answer questions on (just like here). I don't expect that's gonna change.

Zeyad said...

No, it's mine. I have quite a collection of beads. Nothing to do with religion.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I don't feel duty bound to say anything about
      anything you raise. No idea what you're talking about
      in this instance.
"

Then let me expand on my thought there.  I may have been too succinct.  (Probably not; you probably got the point and are just avoiding it, but…)
What I was ‘talking about’ was just making note of the fact that you really didn't have anything to say that wasn't directly related to you trying to troll up another fight.  You didn't like how they ended, and so you're hoping for better results in a second round.  I understand; I got ya covered.

So, if you want to go back over it all again; I'm game.  The threads containing those fights are still open, and I've got ‘em saved in the ‘favorites’ list.  Any time you wanna continue, I'm game, but I will insist on you taking the matters back up where they reside.  None of this stuff you're trying to pull here where you start all over with a clear slate and just flat out friggin’ lie about where things stood before.  You want to re-argue the matters you abandoned in those threads, you gotta reopen in those threads.
I was thinking just last night that I remembered the distain with which you treated Un Ahab in days gone by for intentionally posting stuff she did not believe in, and I was thinking about remarking to you that your now fully developed tendency towards bald-faced lies was at least as dispicable.
Well, now I've remarked on it.  And, I figure it'll help discourage you from keeping that up in the future (help some anyway) if you have to promulgate the lies in the threads involved, where it'll be that much easier for me to point out that you're just makin’ up stuff as you go along now.

So, any time you wanna go back and go over it again, pickin’ up where you left off and not startin’ anew here with an assertion that things where as you wish it had left off instead of as it was, I'm game.

Or, to put it another way, you wanna start anew here so's you can start with pretenses and lies.  I understand that; I certainly understand why; but, we're not gonna do it that way.  I'm gonna hold you to where it was, not let you start over with where you wish is was.  Pick it up where you left it off, or don't.  But you don't get a fresh start here with the field laid out sloped the way you wish things had been.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
I'm not gonna bother correcting the typos above.  You wanna gloat over typos, knock yourself out.

Petes said...

[Troll]: "Pick it up where you left it off."

Y'all's conveniently defective memory is bein' rolled out to cover y'alls ass as usual. I didn't leave it off. I ended with the self same question that had you stumped nine months previously -- the one you wouldn't respond to because the answer had to be either self-contradictory or would show y'all up to be a lyin' toe rag. It's still back there, waitin' to be answered since YOU left off. But y'all have no interest in goin' back there despite yer bleatin' here. In fact y'all have a highly vested interest in runnin' a mile from that thread. So let's not have this crappy pretence that y'all want to revisit it. What y'all want is to not be confronted here or there, 'cos y'all's been shown to be a dumb cluck without the wit to take help when y'all need it.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
    "Quel suprise. Trolls ain't the most discerning."
    Petes @ 9:53 PM prior thread

Doesn't seem to be question there.  Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Ah, wait, there was a subsequent Petes posting:

      "We were done quite some time back, troll."
      Petes @ 4:27 AM, ditto

Nope, no question there either.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, just for fun…
I'm given to understand that rosary beads have a specific structure, a set number of ‘mysteries’ leading to a set number of beads in a beading sequence.  Wiki seems to confirm my recollection on the subject.
So, technically, Zeyad's Arabic string of prayer beads isn't a rosary at all.
Ya missed another one Catholic.  And this one shoulda been right up your alley.
Can't you get nothin’ right?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

No, please, no! Not another 10 hour video!

Star Wars, though, one of my favorite Sy-Fy movie series.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

Hmmm...well, yes, I suppose the place is crawling with US military. But, it waaaas your choice to move to Texas, when there are all sorts of perfectly good states out there to choose from. :) Although, when you think about it, our military personnel are really the most knowledgable about the difficulties faced by Iraqis in Iraq, no matter who caused those difficulties.

Yes, I was wondering about those beads myself. Someone always gets to my questions first. lol!

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

From the other thread:

Given that they couldn't possibly tear off the whole seat (it would render the train unusable), they would just use the seat backs as seats or cushions in a mud shack or wherever else they would find a use for them. We are a resourceful people.

Now imagine if that resourcefulness was used for the good of the country...

Petes said...

[Dim troll]: "So, technically, Zeyad's Arabic string of prayer beads isn't a rosary at all.
Ya missed another one Catholic. And this one shoulda been right up your alley."


I use rosary beads on a regular basis. Ya don't think I know what they look like? The question to Zeyad was tongue-in-cheek. God in heaven, y'all are a dimwitted donkey.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Rachel] ...allowed fundamentalists to flourish in place of what had been a liberal and functioning society.

And what have you been smoking?

When are you going to see the Middle East's reality? Look at the election results in Egypt. Look at Iran. Look at KSA. Look at Syria. Look again at Iraq under Saddam. Look at Iraq now. Do you think it is (or would be) easy to become a liberal, functioning democracy for any of them? You can't just flip a switch and make it so. It takes dedication, hard work, and a passionate belief in the rights of all people to be free to choose their own path.

What happened today in Egypt was amazing in a way, because it really was an honest portrayal of the feelings of the people, in all their uncertainty, fear and hoope. I don't know how that will turn out, but perhaps it is as Sandmonkey wrote, a new chapter. Perhaps the balance of power will be such that people will be forced to compromise, or the nation will be torn apart.

Iraq is struggling with so much besides just a change in leadership. As Zeyad pointed out with the train post, corruption is rampant. Until that is dealt with, it will be difficult to build anything good and lasting. Saddam's Iraq was a dictatorship. If that is what you term liberal and functioning, then you don't know the definition of liberal, nor functioning. Because if a society needs to be a dictatorship to survive then it is not functioning.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "The question to Zeyad was tongue-in-cheek."

Yeah, right.  Except that doesn't exactly work out cleanly.  You re-pressed on the point in your 10:10 AM posting.  (Yeah, I saw the smiley, but that was attached to the question about whether Zeyad had himself gotten religion.  There's the other little matter of the other questions about with whom he might share the vehicle.)  You appear to be rather insistent there for a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ claim now.  (‘Sides you lie a lot.  While the possibility exists that it was indeed intended tongue-in-cheek, the odds are lookin’ to be agin it, and your word to the contrary is pretty much ain't worth crap these days, so…)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "You can't just flip a switch and make it so."

Nevertheless, it might have helped some if we'd gotten them off to a better start.  Maybe have displayed some of that dedication and hard work stuff during the entirely predictable initial rebuilding stage.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

God does not change people until they change themselves. [Quran, 13:11) Excerpted from "Palace of Desire" by Naguib Mahfouz.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Nevertheless, it might have helped some if we'd gotten them off to a better start.

I agree. We were far to haphazard in our efforts. Unfortunately, some of that was due to our own internal politics and the personal agendas of various people.

Maybe have displayed some of that dedication and hard work stuff during the entirely predictable initial rebuilding stage.

Now there I disagree. There were a lot of people who worked very hard. Not all, no. But quite a few. And I won't criticize their efforts.

There were too many forces tugging us this way and that. It's hard to make progress in the middle of a whirlwind.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "There were a lot of people who worked very hard."

A lot of people in Iraq.  Precious few of them at the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle policy level, in Washington D.C., where some actual dedication to rebuilding could have done a lot of good.  And the ones there were got marginalized damn quick as unnecessary killjoys--that's why Powell walked at the end of the first term.

Petes said...

[Dim troll]: "Yeah, right."

Ok, ya got me. I've never seen a rosary before. Never noticed them hangin' off 10,000 stalls at Lourdes and Fatima and Medjugorje, let alone used one. Accidentally thought that thing in the picture was one of those things I've never seen before. Never thought the resident troll would be trollsome enough to Google "rosary" and I wasn't clever enough to think of it myself.

That suit ya better?

Eejit.

I guess in Troll Fairyland a bear doesn't shit in the woods, the Pope doesn't pray, and a Catholic doesn't know what a rosary looks like.

1000% troll ignore mode is now on.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

It appears that Turkey has declared the shootdown of their plane by Syria as a hostile act and has brought it to the attention of NATO, who they are a member of.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I've never seen a rosary before."

Question is your ability to recognize Eastern religious artifacts and/or symbols.  You efforts with the "Shed the Fears" symbols don't speak very highly of your abilities there.

      "1000% troll ignore mode is now on."

If only we could reasonably expect this to be so.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Precious few of them at the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle policy level, in Washington D.C., where some actual dedication to rebuilding could have done a lot of good.

I don't think nation building was part of President Bush's agenda when he first took office, and he never quite switched gears enough to make it so later. Possibly due to bad advice by those who thought we could get in and out of Iraq quickly. Possibly due to bad relations with State. Kind of hard to get anything done if everyone is workind against each other.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Turkey has declared the shootdown of their
      plane by Syria as a hostile act.
"

Takin’ it up a notch.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Takin’ it up a notch.

Yes. Turkey effectively is saying Syria has "drawn" on NATO.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I don't think nation building was part
      of President Bush's agenda when he first took
      office, and he never quite switched gears enough
      to make it so later.
"

For some reason you're rather more cavalier about that particular failure than I tend to be

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "1000% troll ignore mode is now on."

On the bright side, I guess I can take this as word that I can clean up my ‘favorites’ list now.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Cavelier? Hmmm...maybe, but I think I tend to blame Bush's support team, more so than the President. Rumsfeld and Cheney in particular, I think. Strangely enough I think the President might have been made to change his mind on this if it had been coached in the right way. But, that's only a guess, since I have never actually met the man.

And for nation building to have been tried, we would have had to ignore the Rachels, Brunos, and Annies of the world, who kept saying we were infringing on Iraqi sovereignty. We would also have had to deal continually with Iraqi nationalists who were mad as wet hens that we had invaded their country. In the end we threw up our hands and said, "fine, you do it". And so, we are seeing how they are doing it.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

And now, for my Readers Digest joke of the day:

My sister-in-law and her five-year-old were driving one evening when they noticed a stark-naked woman in the convertible next to them. My sister-in-law was shocked but not as much as her son.

"Look at her!" he yelled. "She isn't wearing a seat belt!"

Petes said...

[Troll]: "I can clean up my ‘favorites’ list now."


Think he means his chamber of horrors. Or his litany of embarrassments.

Petes said...

[JG$]: "Blair is a criminal, we know this, but it is comforting to know he will never be able to safely walk down any street in the world as long as the miserable bastard lives."

Why, what would YOU do to him if you saw him?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      Petes @ 4:15 PM

Well, so much for that ‘1000% ignore’ thing lasting through the day even.  Didn't figure he could do it, but I am surprised that he didn't even make it three hours.  His word ain't worth a crap, as I noted previously.

JG said...

[Shame of Ireland] Why, what would YOU do to him if you saw him?

I wouldn't see him. He doesn't walk the streets.

Marcus said...

"Sometimes The Phantom leaves the jungle and walks the street like an ordinary man."

Petes said...

Troll bein' on ignore mode doesn't mean he gets away with spoutin' nonsense.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Wanna talk ‘spoutin’ nonsense’ do ya?  I guess that beats talkin’ ‘bout how your resolution to ignore lasted less than three hours, don't it?

Okay, lets talk ‘bout the nonsense you were spoutin’:
 
      "I didn't leave it off. I ended with the self same
      question that had you stumped nine months
      previously…
"
      Petes @ 11:15 AM

Except, truth is otherwise.  You hadn't ended with a question at all, much less any ‘same question that had [me] stumped’ months ago.  We took the time to look; no question there.  You just made that stuff up, right there on the spot.
And you continued on:

      "But y'all have no interest in goin' back there
      despite yer bleatin' here. In fact y'all have a highly
      vested interest in runnin' a mile from that thread. So
      let's not have this crappy pretence that y'all want to
      revisit it.
"

The only evidence there could possibly be for that proposition is yet to be had.  Take it back to where it belongs, and pick up where ya left it off.  I'll be there.  The challenge has been made and is now made again.
I don't think you're foolin’ anybody by claiming you can't accept the challenge on account of I'll fold if you do.  That doesn't even make Bruno kind of sense.

Your move. 

Petes said...

^ Scroll

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
That's your best move?  Ya think so?
You're trying to convince folks that the reason you can't call my bluff is because I'm bluffing, and the best ya got is to pretend you're back on ‘ignore mode’ when you couldn't pull that off the first time.  Really now?  Come on fat boy, even Bruno would be ashamed of that one.

One more chance for ya then, fat boy.  I'll let ya retake that last move, bein’ as I'm gracious and magnanimous and like that.

Petes said...

^ Scroll

Petes said...

(and everyone else only has to look at that link, or even just search it for the word "question" to know that the troll is lyin' and blusterin' to try and save face again)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Interesting twist.  You claim to have ended the previous thread with a question:

      "I didn't leave it off. I ended with the self same
      question that had you stumped nine months
      previously
"
      Petes @ 11:15 AM, suprs

But, obviously you didn't.  We've been over that.
So now you claim to have ended a different, even earlier thread with an unanswered question.  And you even provide a link.  So, we look at that link and discover that you didn't end that one with a question either.  You ended it with this:

      "Interesting. I customarily consider them [hours]
      to be angles of Right Ascension, corresponding to
      fifteen degree of celestial longitude. When I'm being
      unduly pedantic, that is.
      "But when I'm being matter-of-fact, I say:
      "Lee says the Difference of Two Squares method
      must ‘first’ and ‘always’ be used, but that's
      contradicted by Lee's own evidence, so ‘Winner’ Lee
      is either stupid or a liar
"
      Petes @ 10:49 PM, even earlier thread
     (full text of post; unedited)

Nope, no question there either.  (I might contest some of the assertions contained therein, but there's no question there.)

That's it then, Petes?  That's all ya got even on your second shot at it?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
 
I gotta tell ya, Petes.  If that's the best you can do, if your supposed ‘explanation’ for why you can't ‘call my bluff’ is because I'm bluffing.  And you've imagined up the idea that you closed an earlier thead with a question that doesn't happen to be there. 
If that's the best you can do… 
Then I'm pretty much content to let the matter rest with that link you provided to where you imagined up the question that doesn't.  I think that's all we need to know ‘bout your imaginary endings.
I think I'm good with lettin’ it end right there.
(No doubt this'll gnaw on ya, and you'll have to rant on about your imaginary question again at some later time, but…)
I think I'm good with this for now.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
This typo I will correct:

      "Then I'm pretty much content to let the matter
      rest with that link you provided to where you imagined
      up the question that doesn't exist
."

Petes said...

^ Troll is flingin' troll shit. Scroll.

Petes said...

(Non-trolls will notice that I said nothing about the last post on that thread. I said I ended with a question, and that is indeed what ended any pretension of integrity on the part of the troll. I also point out that the troll can end this to his own satisfaction anytime he likes, without further reference to me. His contention for 9 months was that Step 4 of this algorithm on Wikipedia contains an incorrect factorisation. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, he can do everyone a favour by correcting the mistake. If nobody complains about his edits then it'll turn out he was right all along. If he doesn't edit Wikipedia but just keeps bangin' on about it here, it'll be clear he's just trollin' ... not that there was ever any doubt on that score. Let's not forget he has devoted many hundreds of posts to this stupidity, before he finally got stumped by his own self-contradiction. One tiny edit on Wikipedia -- a matter of a minute or so -- would resolve it for him).

Bruno said...

@Zeyad

Whats more interesting to me is: have you ever talked to these folks about what happened in Iraq ... and what did their response make you feel like? (My guess is that you don't, because by now we've all seen what the warmonger breed is like, and we all know what their response would be.) I remember a man called (if I recall correctly) Haidar setting up a little booth called "talk to an Iraqi" and the responses he got.

Marcus said...

Lynnette: "Turkey effectively is saying Syria has "drawn" on NATO."

Syria says it shot the plane down inside it's own airspace. Turkey says it did indeed violate Syria's airspace but was shot down over international waters.

Well, what was a Turkish plane doing in Syria's airspace in this tense situation? And what would happen to a Syrian plane that flew into Turkish airspace right about now? Or Israeli airspace just about any time for that matter?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I said nothing about the last post on that thread. I
      said I ended with a question….
"
      (emphasis in original)

Yeah, right; ‘cept for the fact that I wasn't using the last posting from the thread.  I was quoting your last post in the thread, the point at which you presumably ‘ended’ your involvement in that thread.

      "Let's not forget he has devoted many hundreds of
      posts to this stupidity…
"
      (emphasis added)

Well, no; this is actually kinda new.  Entirely new in fact; comin’ clear outta left field.  Almost too absurd to be believed, except that I do indeed see it, right there on the page where you put it.

So, your argument for here and for now is that you can't re-engage with your ‘red giants’ argument back in the thread where it resides on account of something to do with an entirely different argument in an entirely different thread from your factoring fallacy from nine nine months ago?
That's even dumber than the ‘can't call his bluff ‘cause he's bluffing’ argument you were originally going with.
That's stupid enough so's to not need any further comment from me.  Just lay out the summary, ‘can't take up the ‘red giants’ argument back in the thread where it resides on account of an entirely different, nine month ago fuss over a math trick in an entirely different thread long ago closed out.’.  Yep, that's stupid on steroids, and needs no further comment from me.
Don't need no Wiki editing either, Petes.  That's be every bit as irrelevant as that last argument of yours is stupid.
So…  I'm good, leavin’ it there; just as you laid it out; I'm good with that.

Floor's yours if ya want it.  Maybe try to make yourself look a little less stupid than that looks?
Rave on muthafucker, rave on.¹
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  ¹  I can't quite pin down that last line.  The voice in my head that goes with that line seems to belong to the late, great Richard Pryor.  I'm thinkin’ his ‘That Nigger's Crazy’ comedy routine, but it may have been from one of his often less great movies.  If anybody knows for sure where that comes from…

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Typo:

      "That'd be…"

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Well, what was a Turkish plane doing in Syria's
      airspace in this tense situation?
"

Getting lost?  Drifting a little bit off-course?  Whatever, once it had left Syrian airspace, having taken no hostile action while it was there, it was no longer a valid target on account of the intrusion.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Today's entry re:  American politics:

Damn!  Everything's getting politicized now, even dictum from the bench of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia, in an aside made in his dissenting opinion in the Arizona immigration law case decided just today, took a side trip to make a swipe at Obama on account of the recent administration decision to quit deporting illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents as minors (under the age of 16), and who'd been acting clean and upright ever since.  Poltico.com
That was just a gratutious shot.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the Arizona law under Supreme Court review.  Supreme Court justices are supposed to be above this kind of open partisan politicking.  Scalia, however, is obviously not.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

US Supreme Court rules against most provisions in Arizona Immigration Law.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, an entry today about Iraqi politicking and justice:

In what I'd call a bit of an understatement, a ‘somewhat troubling development out of Baghdad today(Politico.com), the Iraqi government has ordered the closing of 44 media outlets in Iraq, including BBC and Voice of America.  MSNBC

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Bruno,

Whats more interesting to me is: have you ever talked to these folks about what happened in Iraq ...

It's an interesting quesiton you asked Zeyad, Bruno. Personally, I would think he talks to whomever he feels the most comfortable with, military or otherwise. I mentioned in my comment to him earlier that I thought the military personnel who served in Iraq may have the best idea of what Iraqis went through. That was because they were there and were witnesses to some of it.

(My guess is that you don't, because by now we've all seen what the warmonger breed is like, and we all know what their response would be.)

I'm sure Zeyad can form his own opinions of whomever he chooses to, Bruno.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Marcus,

Well, what was a Turkish plane doing in Syria's airspace in this tense situation?

Turkey says it just strayed a littler further then intended. True, or not? I don't know.

And what would happen to a Syrian plane that flew into Turkish airspace right about now? Or Israeli airspace just about any time for that matter?

As Turkey pointed out, and I believe is proper procedure, the plane would be given a verbal warning, if that didn't work, planes would be sent to escort it out of their airspace. And, if that didn't work, then it is fair game to be shot down. According to Turkey there were no warnings given.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

the Iraqi government has ordered the closing of 44 media outlets in Iraq, including BBC and Voice of America.

Idiots.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
(It occurred to me, just before I went wondering off to do something that'd take me away from the keyboard for awhile…  Petes must really have felt stung over his screwin’ up of that ol’ standby math trick of his.  He's obviously still carryin’ a grudge over the thumpin’ he took over that one.  It's been nine months now, and he still ain't gotten over it.)

Petes said...

^ Scroll. Troll's flingin' troll shit every which way.
He can end his nine month torture on the factorisation thing over at Wikipedia any time he likes, where they will a) laugh their asses off at him, b) ban him from editing again.
With the orbital radius and red giant expansion booboos, there's no easy way out for him. So he'll rely on the old tactics -- evasion and obfuscation. Some day it'll occur to him to ask for a free maths lesson. Or maybe not. Maybe vexatious trolls never rise above their self-imposed ignorance. They prefer lyin' and stupidity to knowledge. Quite tragic really.

Petes said...

(Occurs to me, the troll's invitation to go back over it all again prolly means he's found another wiki page that he thinks he understands. Maybe somethin' about the CNO cycle versus the proton-proton chain. Wants to go another round with his shiny new gloves on. Hope springs eternal, 'n' all that).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "He can end his nine month torture on the factor-
      isation thing over at Wikipedia any time he likes…
"

I don't have any ‘nine month torture on the factorization thing over at Wikipedia’.  At least, I don't have a problem with Wiki.  The only place they do it wrong is in the ‘fallacy’ section where they put out your version of how it's done and label it as wrong!; they label it as fallacious.
They get the factoring correct in the actual factoring pages.  See Factoring, and Difference of two squares.  Anybody's got a problem with Wiki it's you.  YOU go tell ‘em they got their math wrong.

And, you're still capable of talkin’ up your new, but related, claims of ‘orbital radius and red giant expansion booboos’ back in the thread where this subject belongs.  Challenge there is still open and you're still ducking out.  I don't reckon there's much chance you want to change that.

      "Some day it'll occur to him to ask for a free
      maths lesson.
"

I was wondering how long it'd take you to reach for your standby excuse, the secret ‘maths’ that you'll never show anybody.  Guess we're there now.
I am not impressed.  You've reached for the supposedly secret ‘maths’ too many times now for me to take you seriously here.  And you've never delivered and never will. I'm not even gonna ask you to show "em this time; you never do; you never will; they don't exist.
You figure that standby line still works with anybody else?  You're welcome to think that if you please.  I'm bettin’ agin it.

(I hadn't escaped yet--did get lunch in though.)

Marcus said...

Lynnette, it largely depends on whose version you believe. And really you should not believe one over the other at this point is my opinion. Turkey claims that Syrias territorial waters extends 12 miles from the coast and that the plane went in then was shot after going back out at about 13 miles off the coast. Syria claims that the plane was flying at an altitude of a mere 100 meters and they shot it down about 1 mile off their coast, far into their territorial waters. They also claim the projectiles used have a range of only about 2 miles so it would have been impossible to reach outside their territorial waters.

Someone's lying, and both have reason to do so. If you haven't noticed there's an all out propaganda war going on.

For that matter many turkish commentators are also wondering what their plane was doing inside Syria's territory with the situation being as tense as it is (not that they aren't pissed with the Syrians for shooting it down). Strange kind of "accident" that, wouldn't you say?

Also, again, I would like for you to try to see the situation from other perspectives. Change the intruder and the country who shoots an intruder down. Try a few different scenarios. See if you're still so sure many others would have acted with more restraint when there's what amounts to a civil war going on in their country and weapons are smuggled across their borders. Try, for instance, a Syrian military plane in Israeli territorial waters during Israels war with Lebanon. Do you really believe the Israelis would do anything but shoot it from the skies as fast as possible and would you really have objected to that?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Point of clarification:
 
      "[Y]ou're still capable of talkin’ up your new, but
      related, claims of ‘orbital radius and red giant
      expansion booboos’ back in the thread where this
      subject belongs.
"

When I wrote ‘related’, I meant related to the 'red giant fuss of just a few days ago.  It's fairly obviously totally unrelated to the math trick from nine months ago.  The current efforts of Petes to conflate the two distinct subjects notwithstanding.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Lynnette, it largely depends on whose version
      you believe…
"

No it doesn't.  There was no effort made to warn it off, none.  Even assuming the reliability of the Syrian story (and it's a fairly far-fetched story--100 meters off the deck?), even assuming that much, no warning, no attempt to intercept or get eyes on the target to confirm its identity as hostile in lieu of a radar lock and quick shot at it before it got away.  (If hostilities had already broken out the acceptable rules of engagement might be different, but hostilities have not yet broken out between Syria and any power with any air capabilities.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
‘Scuse me Marcus.  I reread your post.  Are you suggesting that the Syrians had confirmed the target as a Turkish military plane before they fired?

Marcus said...

They're claiming they didn't. They're claiming an unknown military aircraft flying in their national airspace and they fired first since they perceived it to be a threat. They're saying that the military was under standing order to fire on perceived threats in their airspace. They're basically saying it was a snap decision made by military personell who perceived a threat to them in their own territory and that the whole thing was "regrettable".

That's their story, which I doubt is entirely true.

But I also doubt the Turkish story about the plane being on some sort of planned excersise and getting off course and mistakenly entering into Syrian airspace.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "They're claiming they didn't. They're claiming an
      unknown military aircraft flying in their national
      airspace and they fired first since they perceived it to
      be a threat.
"

If they couldn't identify it as Turkish, they couldn't know if it were military.
So, they fired on a bogie, on an unidentified aircraft on an unknown, quite possibly non-hostile, mission.  And they're not currently engaged in hostilities with any power known to have to have air capabilities.  And you're cool with that?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Marcus,

Someone's lying,

Turkey has admitted that the plane strayed into Syrian territory. They both agree on that. The question is, was there any warning given and at what point was the plane shot down?

If you haven't noticed there's an all out propaganda war going on.

There usually is, isn't there?

Strange kind of "accident" that, wouldn't you say?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how good the Turkish Air Force is. But I can't imagine why they would be testing the Syrian air defenses like that, really. It would be a foolhardy thing to do, the situation being as "tense" as it is, wouldn't it?

Also, again, I would like for you to try to see the situation from other perspectives. Change the intruder and the country who shoots an intruder down.

Marcus, I can't imagine any country more jumpy then we were after 9/11. There were any number of incidents of unidentified planes being tracked and intercepted. None were shot down. And all proved to be innocent of any wrongdoing, except maybe straying into restricted airspace.

Marcus said...

"If they couldn't identify it as Turkish, they couldn't know if it were military."

They're saying they did identify it as a military aircraft but could not lock down a nationality.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "They're saying they did identify it as a military
      aircraft but could not lock down a nationality.
"

A bit of a stretch there.  I wonder if ‘identify’ doesn't mean happen to have guessed that much right this time?  Be that as it may…  They're not engaged in hostilities with any power known to have air capability.  Bit of a stretch to assume it to be threat then.  So, they fired on a bogie, without any attempt at a warning; without any attempt to communicate, no attempt to intercept, no attempt to get eyes on to confirm that it wasn't perhaps a Syrian military plane in distress for instance.  And you're cool with that?

I am not.  This is generally outside the bounds of acceptable rules of engagement.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

They're basically saying it was a snap decision made by military personell who perceived a threat to them in their own territory...

That could very well be true. I can see where they might be a little nervous.

...and that the whole thing was "regrettable".

Yes, indeed.

They're claiming an unknown military aircraft flying in their national airspace and they fired first since they perceived it to be a threat.

Hmmm...if they couldn't figure out who it was, but they could tell it was military, one has to wonder if maybe they thought it was Syrian military. They did just have one defect, didn't they? I can't remember if that happened before or after the shootdown, though. Anybody remember?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Before.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
That's odd.  I didn't post that twice.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And now the second one has disappeared.  I swear, the ‘Before’ post came up twice when it came up the first time.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Before.

Yes, I just checked. The defection happened on Thursday and the shootdown happened on Friday.

I can see where they might go after a plane leaving their airspace, if they thought it was another defection. They seem to be having more problems with people "jumping ship" lately, in the air and on the ground.

Petes said...

[Lyin' Troll]: "The only place they do it wrong is in the ‘fallacy’ section where they put out your version of how it's done and label it as wrong!; they label it as fallacious."

Troll thinks he can get away with that barefaced lyin' shit now 'cos everyone's beyond carin'. What a stupid, lyin', shit-flingin' troll.
"My version" that he refers to is the factorisation on line 4 here. Troll said on too many occasions to enumerate that factorisation was wrong. That wiki link says explicitly the fallacy is on line 5, not the factorisation on line 4. Troll is lyin', he knows he's lyin', and he's hopin' to fling enough shit to confuse things.

Here is one among many links that proves he's lyin' (search for wiki).

Troll can now go to wikipedia and point out their error (to which they will respond with the derision his childish maths deserves), or admit he was wrong and actin' the eejit for hundreds of posts. Or he can do what he often does - deny he said what he said even when handed a link to his quote. Or he can shut up and go away. That'd suit just fine too.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And as far as the hypothetical Marcuswas posting regarding Israel…
The Israeli would not be apologizing and pretending it was a ‘regretable’ accident.  Israel and Syria are officially at war.  They'd tell the Syrians ‘send more war planes and we'll send more planes into the water.’  But, they are officially at war with one another.  Makes a difference.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "That wiki link says explicitly the fallacy is on line
      5, not the factorisation on line 4.
"

Yep, as best I recall that's almost what they said there, almost.  "The fallacy is in line 5."  However, they were concentrating on the division by zero.  One doesn't make that mistake if one does the factoring on line 4 correctly, which they missed there, but Wiki already knows how do the factoring correctly.  Presumably, they were more worried about explaining the division by zero problem and not so much interested in correct factoring there.  They do get it right on the factoring pages themselves, which is shown in those two links I gave you before and will now give you again.  Factoring and Difference of Two Squares

So, tell ya what ya do PetesYOU go to Wiki and tell them they've got their factoring rules wrong.  And after you've lost that argument in spectacular fashion, as will happen, then I'll go to the Fallacy page and point out to them that this fight has already been had and you lost.  And then they'll fix it right away.

Or, you can stay here and continue to whine ‘cause nobody's taking you serious anymore, on account of none of this has got squat to do with the ‘red giants’ issue anyway.
So,  I don't really care which way you decide to go with that.  You won't ever figure out a way to make this relevant to the ‘red giant’ issue anyway.  Even you aren't that creative with your secret magic ‘maths’.  It's an irrelevancy, and will continue to be just so.  But, your irrelevancy is pretty much all you got to rave on 'bout these days. 
So, rave on muthafucker, rave on.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, I'm particularly unimpressed with the part where you try to prove your argument by linking to your own earlier attempts to prove your argument.  You're now citing yourself as your supposed authority.  I haven't seen that since some of the more desperate attempts from Bruno from way back.
Pitiful.

Petes said...

[Troll]: "Presumably, they were more worried about explaining the division by zero problem and not so much interested in correct factoring there"

Ya couldn't make this shit up. "They got the previous line completely wrong 'cos they were focussin' on the followin' one". Troll never did figure out that the steps of an argument depend on each other. But he's additionally claimin' that none of the dozens of editors, across hundreds of edits in eight years of that wiki page's existence, nor any of the thousands of viewers of that page, ever once noticed the flat out glaring mistake that the troll alleges. What a sad, lyin' bag of shit. I'd swear he dudn't believe this stuff hisself, exceptin' I've seen him claim even more ludicrous shit elsewhere. Moron, deluded, egomaniac, or baldfaced lyin' ... I really can't choose between them anymore. I've really never seen anything remotely like it -- troll with the mathematical standard of a six year old claims that thousands of other growed up people's maths are wrong and he's right. He has to be shittin' us. I guess that's why he's a vexatious troll.

Petes said...

(Tragedy is, there's easily explicable reasons why he's made the stupid mistake he has, to do with the definition of polynomial factorisation, but he can't countenance the loss of face involved, so he'll keep on makin' his outrageous claims no matter how stupid he looks, or how many authorities contradict him ... in his eyes the alternative is worse. So he'll keep bein' vexatious).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Oh, my…  You are still seriously bent ‘bout having lost that argument last time, ain't ya?
Tell ya what ya do.  Just chill a bit.  Consider that maybe you can win the next one.  (Your record counsels strongly agin that, but some optimism, no matter how unlikely, will probably allow you to chill just a little.)
And, ya never know.  Maybe I'll take pity on ya and let ya win one, one of these days, maybe.

Petes said...

(I wonder even now if the troll really believes what he just said. That when line 5 of an algorithm says "divide out" by one of the factors just calculated, that it doesn't matter that the factor isn't actually a factor. Apologies to everyone else for continuin' to use up commnt space bein' so incredulous. It's just that it's hard to fathom how somebody so moronic is capable of typin' English words, rather than jes' droolin' on their keyboard).

Petes said...

Aha. Check. The troll is back to just ignorin' his own incredible, moronic claims, and declarin' victory instead. Standard troll fare. LOL.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Apologies to everyone else for continuin' to use
      up commnt space bein' so incredulous.
"

Your problem isn't so much your credulity; it's that you keep making erroneous assumptions and then believing that they must be true without any further evidence because The Great and Wonderful Petes did the assuming.  Just for instance, just a bit ago, just above, you convinced yourself that the improper factoring done on line 4 was ‘flat out glaring mistake’.  In point of fact, most folks would hardly notice it.  You didn't notice an almost identical mistake in your little math trick, and you'd probably been using that as one of your stock tricks for years.

If you weren't so damn full of yourself you'd not be in this position where you're now trying to rescue an argument you lost nine months ago that hasn't got a damn thing to do with the ‘red giant’ question you started out writing about.  But, once you get full of yourself there's no tellin’ where it's gonna lead ya or what foolishness you'll embrace along the way. 

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, just in passing…  I take it we should assume you'll not be goin’ over to Wiki and tellin’ ‘em that both their general factoring page and their more specific factoring page on the difference of two squares are wrong?

Petes said...

[Troll]: "In point of fact, most folks would hardly notice [the improper factoring done on line 4]"

Even if "most folks" meant morons and children under six, the troll would still be wrong. Most folks with an ounce of common sense know that the factors on line 4 are correct because when you multiply them out like this:

b(a - b) = (a)b - (b)b = ab - b²

... which was what was originally factored. Children under ten can do that.

"Most folk", including many morons, know that when you multiply two things together, those two things are factors of the result. That's the definition of a factor. Even morons know that. Our resident vexatious troll don't know it though. (Or he does, but can't face it).

Petes said...

"I take it we should assume you'll not be goin’ over to Wiki and tellin’ ‘em that both their general factoring page and their more specific factoring page on the difference of two squares are wrong?"

They're not wrong. The troll just misapplied them. I offered a hundred times to explain to the troll where he went wrong. Stupid troll wouldn't listen, though. (Even gave him the answer further up this page, again). Now he's tryin' to make out I'm sayin' Wikipedia's wrong. I never said it, and I'm not sayin' it now. He's the one claimin' Wikipedia is wrong, a claim he has reiterated on this page, as many times before. A simpleton could see from the multiplication in my last comment that the factorisation is correct. Unfortunately, our vexation troll is way, way below simpleton level.

Petes said...

What's even more ironic is that I only ever brought up the Wikipedia entry on Mathematical Fallacy as an example of how the steps of deductive logic follow necessarily one from the other. The troll has just amply demonstrated that he never understood that. He's just stated that an error in one step could have been overlooked because it's inconsequential to the next step, even though the output of the earlier step is used directly in the next. Once again the mind boggles at his sheer dumbness.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Unfortunately, our vexation troll is way, way
      below simpleton level.
"

You''re thinkin’ you're gonna sell that one, do ya?  And, even if ya somehow managed that…
Pray tell, what the hell has any of this got to do with the subject of the ‘red giants’, which is where you started out?  How does this connect up with your inability to take that fight back to where that fight resides?

(Man's just fixated on his little math trick.  Get anywhere close to it and he's snatched back to it as if dragged magnetically, trying to re-fight that fight.  Must have really been stung over how that one ended up; just can't let it go.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "‘Most folk’, including many morons, know that
      when you multiply two things together, those two
      things are factors of the result.
"

Most folks don't even immediately recognize the term ‘factoring’.  Most folks promptly forget most of what they ever knew about it right after they get outta math classes in school.  Did I not warn you already ‘bout the dangers of building your arguments upon your own otherwise unsupported assumptions?  Does it just not sink in with you?
 
      "What's even more ironic is that I only ever
      brought up the Wikipedia entry on Mathematical
      Fallacy as an example of how the steps of deductive
      logic follow necessarily one from the other.
"

I do believe you're havin’ yourself another imaginary event here.  Not that it matters too much.  More important is to notice that the entry in question is on the subject of the math fallacy (misuse of a zero in multiplication and division; division, not factoring, being the inverse of multiplication) and that page is not a tutorial on factoring at all.  They got the factoring right on the factoring pages, where presumably that's the subject they were concentrating upon.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Here's the deal Petes.

The thread on your little math trick is closed down.  No point in going back over your peculiar recollection of how that transpired.  You're too invested in your own too fertile imagination. and without the thread available for me to rub your nose in it, you'll never be able to see the truth.  (And, you're a totally unrepentant lyin’ sumbitch anyway and would just lie about it if you did see the truth.)  So, there's no sense in you entertaining us with tales of all your imagined glories on that thread.
What we can do it this:  We can just do it all over again.  I'll bust your chops for ya again.  Be happy to do it.  We'll do it here, start over from scratch and I'll bust your chops again.  But it'll havta wait until Zeyad gets a new thread for the audience to move to, ‘cause there's only so much grief I'm gonna give this audience.
And, here's the start:

      "Let v and c be equal non-zero quantities.
      ∴ v = c
      ⇒ v² = vc
      ⇒ v² - c² = vc - c²
      ⇒ (v - c)(v + c) = c(v - c)
      ⇒ v + c = c
      ⇒ c + c = c
      ⇒ 2c = c
      ⇒ 2 = 1
"
      Petes @ 3:13 PM

You screwed up at the fourth line where ⇒ (v - c)(v + c) = c(v - c).  That's not the proper way to factor out a binomial square.

And, we can take it from there after Zeyad puts up another post.

Petes said...

^ Scroll the troll.

The moron thinks he's gonna just repeat the same shit he's been spewin' for 10 months.

If the moron wants to entertain himself, let him take:

c(v - c)

and multiply it up and see what he gets as the product. (Answer for the mathematically challenged: vc - c²). Then he can either choose to either believe that c and (v - c) are factors of that product, as per the definition of factors, or he can believe whatever the hell he wants. Or he can admit he doesn't know how to multiply up c(v - c). Or he can just choose to ignore the challenge. That's his dilemma. He can either be a moron, or a stupid time wastin' troll. It's one or the other at this stage. I won't be hangin' around to see any answer or none. I'm long past carin'. For a long time I offered to show him where he went wrong in his reasonin', but now he can wallow in his ignorance.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
I'll have to take that as a negative response to my offer.

I'll further have to assume you meant that part ‘the challenge’ to mean you think you're making a counter offer of some sort.
I'm also assuming that your counter offer is not got to do with your assertion of a showing of ‘where [I] went wrong in [my] reasonin'’, as in showin’ us those secret ‘maths’ you always figure out a way to refuse to show us when you're actually put to it.

So, what is the counter offer supposed to be?  Any chance you can actually write it down instead of just tossin’ out innuendo that you'll just back away from later?

Petes said...

(On the original thread, the troll multiplied up those factors and got the right answer -- the one that implied he was wrong about the factorisation. Then he back-pedalled and said the product wasn't what he'd said it was. Ever since then, he just point blank refuses to do the multiplication. He's the quintessential Jesuit that won't look through Galileo's telescope for fear of seein' what he insists isn't there. Except in this case he's already had a peek and can't deal with what he saw. I have honestly never encountered such persistent, wilful ignorance in any human being.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
So, we're gonna havta sit through some more of your imaginings of your past glories, are we?  (Like you'd still be this pissed if there'd been any glory for ya back there.)
Well, is that all of them or you got more imaginings to treat us to?
‘Cause when you're done I'm gonna ask the question again. 

Petes said...

Ahh. Troll's back and he's confused. Something about offers and counteroffers. Only offer I'm makin' is that I'm henceforth gonna scroll his inane shit. Ain't nobody left in any doubt about his lyin' stupidity. Since he can't be reformed, that's job done. Ciao.

Max Factor said...

c(v - c) = ?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Only offer I'm makin' is that I'm henceforth gonna
      scroll his inane shit.
"

Yeah, right.  Like we ain't seen that one before, in just this thread too.  Any chance you're gonna last longer than three hours this time?

Meantime:  I said I'd put the question one more time, and so I shall.

      "What is the counter offer supposed to
      be? Any chance you can actually write it down
      instead of just tossin’ out innuendo that you'll just
      back away from later?
"

(And I did notice how quick you stepped right on past the invite to show us your mighty mystery maths.  But, there's no point in dwelling overlong on that again.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "c(v - c) = ?"
      Max Factor @ 8:35 PM

It equals zero.  Petes started with:

      "Let v and c be equal non-zero quantities.
      ∴ v = c
"

∴ (v - c) = 0
Any number multiplied by zero equals zero
∴ c(v - c) = 0

Q.E.D.

Max Factor said...

Then, by the same (stupid) token:

vc - c² is also equal to zero.

Zero is not a difference of two squares.

Therefore the factors of vc - c² are not (√(vc)+c)(√(vc)-c) as the troll claimed.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Well, I figure Petes has had enough time to consider actually stating any counter-offer he might have considered making.  I'm also going to have to revise my assumption that he was actually trying to make a counter-offer.  He may very well have been trying to imply that much, but that was vague enough for him to back away from it later, and he did.  To wit:

      "Something about offers and counteroffers. Only
      offer I'm makin' is that I'm henceforth gonna scroll his
      inane shit.
"

So, I'm gonna havta take that as sufficient evidence that there is no counter-offer going to be forthcoming.  And my offer to bust his chops for him again has been categorically refused.

Guess that means that Petes will give it a while for memories to fade and then he'll go back to entertaining us with his imagined glories from the thread he knows nobody can go check out.
We can at least hope it's a reasonable while it give it.  (I'm guessin’ he's back to his imaginings within 48 hours or so at the outside.)

Petes said...

Hah. Troll got hoisted by his own petard at 9:01 PM. Instant reaction -- flings more troll shit to save face. Quel surprise.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Then, by the same (stupid) token:
      "vc - c² is also equal to zero.
"

Yes. 

      "Zero is not a difference of two squares."

Likewise correct.

      "Therefore the factors of vc - c² are not
      (√(vc)+c)(√(vc)-c)
"

Ah, there you have made one of the mistakes that Petes made.  You confuse factoring with division which is an arithmetic function.  I mentioned this distinction before (briefly), in just this thread.  To wit:

      "…division, not factoring, being the inverse of
      multiplication…
"

Our fanciful friend, Petes has had some trouble with the distinction between the two.  Seems you have suffered the same failing.  There are some distinctions to be observed between solving an equation and factoring a polynomial expression.  The details are complicated, and I'll not bore you with them here.  But that's where you screwed it up.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, it seems Petes didn't make it anywhere near three hours this time.

As he's wont to say:  Quel suprise.

Petes said...

^ Dolt

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Probably make you feel better if I at least let you get in the last word, wouldn't it?
Okay, go ahead then.
Rave on muthafucker…

Petes said...

[Troll]: "You confuse factoring with division which is an arithmetic function."

So does Wikipedia. And everyone with an ounce of mathematical nous. Only in Troll-land does factoring involve magical rules that have to be Jesuitically parsed from carefully selected web pages.

"c(v - c) = ?" has an algebraic solution that involves no knowledge of the specific values involved. Were it not so, there would be no such thing as algebra. That's the hump that most 8 year olds have to get over in order to embrace the concept of symbolic manipulation in mathematics. The troll has yet to make that leap.

And now we may leave him to his idiocy.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "And now we may leave him to his idiocy."

But, that's not gonna be necessary.  I'm still willing to pound you down all over again. 
You'll find me mostly immune to your self-indulgent ranting and raving.  All that stuff you learned watching Bruno, where you carry on at tedious length indulging your own fondness for the piling up of all the florid adjectives and adverbs you can think of to pile up.  I'm mostly immune to that.  I've seen it all before from Bruno as well.  (Not to mention having had to endure your entirely weird and wholly self-indulgent relationship with the ersatz ‘Italian’, who seemed to revel in that sort of childishness almost as much as you do.)
But, your weirdness and self-indulgence notwithstanding, I'm willing to ignore those foibles and still willing to pound you down all over again, for pretty much as long as you figure you can take the pounding.  (Eventually you'll go into a rant and wonder off amidst a pile of adjectives and adverbs, but, as I already know that, it won't dismay me in the least when it happens.)  So, nothin’ really stopping us, is there?

We were waiting on was for Zeyad to put up another thread, so the audience had somewhere else to go.  He's done that now, and I'm still here and still ready and willing to pound you down some more.
And I'll get ya off to a fresh start:

      "Let v and c be equal non-zero quantities.
      ∴ v = c
      ⇒ v² = vc
      ⇒ v² - c² = vc - c²
      ⇒ (v - c)(v + c) = c(v - c)
      ⇒ v + c = c
      ⇒ c + c = c
      ⇒ 2c = c
      ⇒ 2 = 1
"
Petes @ 3:13 PM

You screwed it up at the fourth line where ya got ⇒ (v - c)(v + c) = c(v - c). That's not the proper way to factor out a binomial square.  Properly factored the transition from line 3 would have yielded ⇒ (√(vc) + c)(√(vc) - c) as line 4.
You will find the proper way to factor binomial squares in the Wiki pages on factoring, here and here

You may now respond.

(I didn't actually promise you the last word back there, so don't bother to bitch ‘bout it.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Hmmmm… I guess that one sentence really should read as follows:

      "Properly factored the transition from line 3 would
      have yielded ⇒ (√(vc) + c)(√(vc) - c) on the right
      hand side of
line 4.
."

Yeah, that's better.
You may now respond.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Tande said...

This thread is most incredibly amusing for the neutral observer.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.       said...

 
      "…incredibly amusing…"

I can see how that'd be.  Too bad Petes has decided to hold his cards, isn't it?
Fear not though; he'll try to resurrect the fuss in another thread one of these days.  He needs an audience, and it's the lack of audience that's dimmed his enthusiasm.  At some point the gnawing at him will get to be too much, and he'll come back at it again.  He's just on hold now; he's not actually given it up.