Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, August 30, 2009

blipey the clueless clown says forensic science is nonsense

According to Erik Pratt, aka blipey the clueless clown, if we cannot tell the design from non-design pertaining to a distributation of leaves on the ground then our design detection methodology isn't any good.

And that means forensic science is junk. SETI is a waste of time and money. Archaeology may as well stop looking for artifacts and fire investigators should just stay home.

Insurance fraud- another waste of time.

What the moron fails to understand is that his position needs to make such a determination!

IOW if his position can't make a determination about the leaves, by blipey's "logic", it is a piece of shit and shouldn't even be considered.

57 Comments:

  • At 7:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. ID isn't anything like those other fields.

    Test that by giving me an EXAMPLE of an investigation in each field. Remember to include the EXAMPLE of ID--something you've never done.

     
  • At 8:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID isn't anything like those other fields.

    How do you know?

    It is clear to me that you don't know anything about ID nor any of those other fields.

    So tell me how you know ID isn't anything like those other fields.

    I know I just posted something from SETI which shows ID is pretty much like SETI.

    So ante up or fuck off.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW the point isn't just that those other fields are like ID, the point is those other fields depend on the ability to differentiate design from non-design.

    Therefor the SAME tests apply across the board.*

    Especially with forensic science. Their tools would be useful in a leave distribution case.

    (*That is if we go by your "logic".)

     
  • At 10:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. Which is why you are too chicken to actually post an EXAMPLE of ID at work. There are journals filled with the stuff cosmologists, archeologists and crime lab people do.

    Somehow there isn't enough ID work out there to use as scrap paper for my grocery list. And you keep yammering about how great it all is, but have gone to Herculean efforts to avoid posting even a single EXAMPLE of ID at work.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that you are too chicken to post any examples that support your position?

    Why is that you have never posted anything that would support your position?

    Your positions's methodology at work? LoL!!!

    There are journals filled with the stuff cosmologists, archeologists and crime lab people do.

    And I bet if you looked the methodology described in those journals would be a close match to the methodology used by IDists.

    BTW the design inference in peer-review

    You made the claim that ID isn't like any of those other fileds.

    Substantiate that claim of don't bother posting.

    I am growing sick of your lies and ignorance.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I might be able to do that, if there was any ID work or EXAMPLES of it at work. Alas! I find none.

    So, I believe my statement stands: ID (as a field of study that apparently does nothing) is not like robust fields of study that accomplish things, like cosmology.

    Of course, you could completely render my argument useless by posting one teensy weensy EXAMPLE of ID at work. Why do you fail to do so?

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't care what you believe.

    You are clueless.

    Your posts prove that you are clueless.

    Now support your claim or admit that all you can do is to argue from ignorance.

    I have already provided EXAMPLES of ID at work.

    You seem to be too stupid to understand any of it.

    Why do you think your ignorance and stupidity are my problems?

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- SETI tries to determine design from non-design

    2- Forensic science tries to determine design from non-design

    3- Archaeologists looking for artifacts try to determine design from non-design.

    4- Intelligent Design tries to determine design from non-design

    5- Evolutionism declares non-design regardless of the evidence, facts and logic

    So which one doesn't fit?

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There are journals filled with the stuff cosmologists, archeologists and crime lab people do.

    Then what, exactly is wrong with IDists using similar methodologies?

    My point has always been that IDists use tried-n-true methodologies.

    IDists have said that many times.

    And all you and your ilk can say is those methodologies either don't apply or are being used incorrectly (that is why IDists came to the design inference- we can't use those methodologies correctly).

    All the while (trying to) conceal the fact that your position doesn't have any methodology to determine design from non-design.

    For you clowns the bald declaration of non-design is enough.

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why do you continually say "similar methodologies" and continually fail to produce an EXAMPLE?

    Most people (everyone, in fact, except ID kooks), in order to negate the statement "you don't have X" produce X.

    ID kooks, on the other hand, when told "you don't have X" respond with:

    Well, U and C go out to lunch on Thursdays so in order to have not C, we look at the relation between F and K.

    Seems self-defeating. Maybe you could be the first IDer to produce an eXample?

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why do you continually say "similar methodologies" and continually fail to produce an EXAMPLE?

    Why do you say I have failed to produce an EXAMPLE when in fact I have?

    Why don't you present an EXAMPLE that supports your position? That way I would know what you will accept.

    Most people (everyone, in fact, except ID kooks), in order to negate the statement "you don't have X" produce X.

    Except evolutionitwits. Ya see I have said that you cannot provide an example nor a testable hypothesis for your position.

    And instead of doing so you always change the subject.

    So this time you have to ante up.

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clownie claims:
    ID isn't anything like those other fields.

    I provide:

    1- SETI tries to determine design from non-design

    2- Forensic science tries to determine design from non-design

    3- Archaeologists looking for artifacts try to determine design from non-design.

    4- Intelligent Design tries to determine design from non-design

    5- Evolutionism declares non-design regardless of the evidence, facts and logic

    So which one doesn't fit?


    IOW ID looks quite a bit like those other fields.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Still no idea how you would actually use ID in the field? Sad.

    I mean, let's say you're leading a group of Young ID Field Researchers (ID does have field researchers, right?--or is that a difference...) through the jungle. What are you leading the to? What are you looking for? How do you go about collecting information in an ID manner? Then, what do you do with it that is ID-like?

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have told you how ID is used in the field- the same way that all design-centric venues are used- including forensic science, SETI and archaeology- we look for traces of agency involvement.

    It's all about reducibility- what are the minimum requirements to account for it?

    The investigation should lead us to the point of agency involvement- initial conditions, the process or the result.

    But anyway I have provided a list of literature that goes over the very thing you say ID is lacking.

    IOW yours is an argument from willfull ignorance.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science Asks Three Basic Questions:

    1- What's there?

    2- How does it work?

    3- How did it come to be this way?

    I can't help it if you don't understand the nature of science.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Field researchers-

    Who are the field researchers for the non-telic position?

    What is their methodology?

    IOW how was it determined that the design is illusory?

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No idea what that field trip would look like, then?

    Let's say you write a book about ID field researchers--sort of an adventure novel--very popular (especially with the UD crowd). Could you put down a few paragraphs of the chapter where they go into the jungle?

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, I don't have any idea what a non-telic field trip would look like.

    Apparently neither do you.

    However an ID field trip would look like all other investigations in which we try to answer the 3 basic questions science asks:

    1- What's there?

    2- How does it work?

    3- How did it come to be this way?

    Again it is not my problem that you don't understand how science operates.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no idea at all what would go on? You just walk around with no idea what to look for, no idea what to do with it when you see it? Cool.

    Is your idea of forensic science like the following:

    "Hey, Steve. Look at this over here."

    "Wow, Dave. We should investigate that."

    "Sure should. How do we do that?"

    "Well. Like they do at SETI."

    "Oh. I see. WHAT exactly is that?"

    "The search for extraterrestrial life."

    "No. I mean what exactly do the DO?"

    "Search for things."

    "Yeah. But how?"

    "Well, like archeologists."

    "Oh. I see. Um...what should we do?"

    "Be like archeologists."

    "But how?"

    "Investigate."

    "Um, Steve? Where'd the body go?"

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOU have no idea. That is why you are a clown.

    I know exactly what I would do.

    I know exactly what I would look for.

    Anyone associated with the investigation would also have an idea.

    Not all investigations are the same- as you seem to think.

    There isn't any "do this, then do that".

    Science isn't like that.

    But anyway when looking for or trying to rule out design you would:

    1- look for (signs of) counterflow.

    2- see if said counterflow can be accounted for without agency involvement

    For EXAMPLE if there isn't any evidence for a crime then we shouldn't initiate a criminal investigation.

    You don't go to the police and say someone stole the watch you are wearing.

    Another EXAMPLE is archaeologists rely on artifacts/ traces left behind in order to try to figure out something of the people who left them.

    Without any traces archaeologists wouldn't be trying to figure out who they were and what they did.

    What to do with it?

    The same thing I have been telling you and you seem to be ignorant of-

    It goes to the nature of science.

    You know those 3 questions science asks?

    You can only understand something in the light of how it came to be.

    As I said it matters to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or not.

    Just because you are ignorant of investigation and science- and can't understand that, doesn't mean squat to me.

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, Joe, Joe. If you don't know what to do, that's fine. No one's holding it against you (certainly not me); no one in the world knows how to go about an ID investigation. It's okay.

    I've never said all investigations are the same. Which does make the fact that you can't describe even a single EXAMPLE of ID in action a hoot. I mean, super funny. You could describe almost anything, but don't. Hilarious.

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, skippy, flippy.

    ID in action is just a scientific investigation that is allowed to reach a design inference.

    IOW it is a scientific investigation without blinders.

    Imagine, if you can, a group of scientists not forced into a non-telic conclusion no matter what the evidence is.

    As I said clownie- it is all about reducibility.

    And just because you are too stupid to understand that concept doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.

    Also I provided a link to ID in action.

    Strange how you keep ignoring stuff that I provide and then babble on as if I never provided it.

     
  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I can provide a link to special topics describing branes in M-Theory. Doesn't mean I understand it.

    So, how about--in your own words--giving us an EXAMPLE of ID in action. An easy one would be the Stonehenge Problem. A decidedly more difficult one would be the Leaf Pattern Problem. Use either, or feel free to come up with your own.

     
  • At 8:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I can provide a link to special topics describing branes in M-Theory. Doesn't mean I understand it.

    If I had a question about branes- mmmm branes- I wouldn't want your opinion. I would want the link.

    Your twist on it wouldn't help at all.

    So, how about--in your own words--giving us an EXAMPLE of ID in action.

    I have provided many examples- in my own words.

    In order for me to comply with you- seeing I already have- I need YOU to provide an EXAMPLE supporting YOUR position.

    That way I know what you will accept and you won't be able to hide your ignorance.

    Put up or shut up skippy...

     
  • At 12:42 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Could you provide a link to your own words providing an EXAMPLE of ID in action? That would be a time other than the ones where you said "according to this link..."

    Really, if ID where as simple as you claim, you think you would be able to provide an example with every post....

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Could you provide a link to your own words providing an EXAMPLE of ID in action?

    Been there, done that.

    That wasn't good enough so now you have to provide an example that supports your position so I know exactly what you will accept.

    Really, if ID where as simple as you claim

    I never made such a claim. Never.

    As a matter of fact I have claimed the opposite- science is NOT for everyone.

    Science is not easy.

    Design detection takes quite a bit of knowledge and work.

    But all that is besides the point.

    Provide an example that supports your position or don't bother posting here.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Work that you don't feel qualified to describe? Is that why you never post any examples of ID at work?

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And yet I have described and posted examples of ID at work.

    Why do you think your ignorance is a refutation?

    And why is it that you can't even reference something that supports your position?

    If you could just post some EXAMPLES supporting YOUR position I would know exactly what it is you are looking for.

    Otherwise I can say your "challenge" has been met and all you have is willfull ignorance.

    As I said before you can't teach the willfully ignorant and you can't reason with clowns.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Really? When asked to provide the information content of an object (a topic that you brought up), you have failed in every case to actually work an EXAMPLE of how to do it.

    Many others have tried to work an EXAMPLE using what we can glean of your methodology.

    You respond with, "You asswipes are wrong." And fail to show us where we are wrong, why we are wrong, and what the right answer would be.

    When asked about how you would determine the design of various objects, you always respond with "I'd investigate it." You leave it there, with a big gap in actually knowing WHAT it is you would be doing.

    You avoid showing any work every single time.

     
  • At 2:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When asked to provide the information content of an object (a topic that you brought up), you have failed in every case to actually work an EXAMPLE of how to do it.

    That is a lie.

    I have explained exactly how to do it.

    Don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand what I post.

    As I said this stuff isn't for just anyone. There is a REASON why you are a CLOWN.

    Many others have tried to work an EXAMPLE using what we can glean of your methodology.

    That is another lie.

    So two lies - might as well end with a projection:

    You avoid showing any work every single time.

    Ya see skippy has failed to produce anything besides lies and ignorance.

    So until you can provide an example of the methodology your position used to determine that living organisms and the universe are the result of non-telic processes you don't have anything to get upset about.

    In the absence of that go get an education in science.

    Then perhaps we will have something to discuss.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Perhaps you could link to the place you worked an EXAMPLE? You know, the place where you SHOWED YOUR WORK? Perhaps the place where you gave an ANSWER?

    Otherwise, nothing I said was a lie.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I explained your lies.

    For EXAMPLE- when you said:

    When asked to provide the information content of an object (a topic that you brought up), you have failed in every case to actually work an EXAMPLE of how to do it.

    I responded with:

    I have explained exactly how to do it.

    Here is the EXAMPLE:

    CSI and baseballs- a Repost for blipey the clueless clown

    And according to YOU, teaching demonstrates mastery.

    I can't help it if you are so stupid you cannot be taught.

    And the following is a link in which I worked an EXAMPLE:

    Measuring Information/ specified complexity

    Not only that I have supported ID with evidence- biological evidence and your comments are noticeably absent from those threads.

    I have provided a testable hypothesis for teh design inference and instead of providing one for your position- you know to show me how a good one is constructed- all you can do is blather incoherently.

    So the claim that you are a liar is confirmed by the evidence.

    The claim that you are an intellectual coward is also confirmed as you have once again failed to provide something that would support your position.

     
  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Not an example, Joe. For many reasons. There is no work in your link. There is no methodology explaining how to calculate information content from your list. In fact, many people asked for clarifications and examples of how you would use your list to calculate an actual value. We're still waiting.

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes it is an example.

    Yes there is a valid explanation in the link.

    Yes I have calculated an actual value- in one of those links.

    No one has ever provided anything I asked for- I was very clear and specific.

    Yet nothing at all from you.

    However we can end this impasse if you would just ante up and present an example that supports your position.

    It would also help your case if you provided the methodology used by your position.

    That way we can compare.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is no work in your link. There is no methodology explaining how to calculate information content from your list.

    There is an example and work in one link and more methodology in the second.

    Just because you are too stupid to understand that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

     
  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An EXAMPLE with explained methodology and including work:

    When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?

    If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.

    For example:
    aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

    A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity.

    More on the methodology:

    Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

    Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

    That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

    I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

    And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

    Again just count the bits in the instructions.

    For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

    Have you ever had to assemble something?

    The object you assembled would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the assembly instructions.

    That I confirmed with a reference fron Stanford:

    The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

     
  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    and then we have:

    What can be done is to "calculate" the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.

    Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.

    So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

    And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.

    One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

    An EXAMPLE of what blipey needs to provide:

    How to make a baseball

    "Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

    The more specifications required the more information required-

    First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

    1- a specified core
    2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
    3- specified leather cover
    4- specified thread

    That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

    How tightly to wrap the core
    Direction of wrapping
    How much material to use
    The cover would be cut in a specified manner
    It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

    After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

    All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.


    That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.


    To gather all the data required is a lot of work. As I told Erik Pratt if he did that work I would count the bits. If Erik wants me to do all of the work then he has to pay me. And doing work for assholes is expensive.

    What part of all that are you too stupid to understand?

    We have an EXAMPLE- work- and methodology.

     
  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, we used exactly that methodology when calculating the info content of a baseball and you said we were wrong. Let's compare.

    JoeG's aardvark example:

    aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants

    A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity.

    Now, a baseball:

    baseball: a sphere made of leather and wound twine, used in the sport of the same name.

    That would translate to 385 bits of information/specified complexity.

    You said this was the wrong approach. Perhaps you could tell us the right approach and what the correct amount of information in a baseball is?

    Of course, at various times, you've also said that CSI and info content are not the same, but you appear to equate the two in the above example.

    You're going to have to be much more clear, Joe.

     
  • At 8:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, we used exactly that methodology when calculating the info content of a baseball and you said we were wrong.

    No one posted what I asked for- the assembly instructions, complete with a bill of materials, for a regulation major-league baseball.

    I was very specific and even provided an EXAMPLE.

    You failed to follow what I posted.

    Also the "aardvark" EXAMPLE is good enough and nothing else is required.

    Of course, at various times, you've also said that CSI and info content are not the same, but you appear to equate the two in the above example.

    CSI depends on the amount of specified information.

    Again anyone with a clue understands that.

    But thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant SoB.

    You're going to have to be much more clear, Joe.

    Said the clown who has his head up his ass...

     
  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    All the aardvark example is is a definition of an aardvark. It is certainly not the assembly instructions for an aardvark. The baseball definition I gave is just as good.

    So, why does an aardvark have an information content of 1,010 and a baseball does not have the info content of 385?

     
  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The aardvark EXAMPLE is an EXAMPLE of measuring information.

    It is an EXAMPLE of the METHODOLOGY used.

    It is an EXAMPLE that showed the WORK.

    As for YOUR baseball EXAMPLE I have already EXPLAINED what is wrong with it.

    How many times do I have to explain it to you?

    You can't understand normal thinking.

    Think about it...

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. You define the aardvark and then count the bits. I get it. That means my calculation of 385 bits of information in a baseball is correct.

     
  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You define the aardvark and then count the bits. I get it.

    No, you don't get it. It doesn't have anything to do with definitions, per se.

    Ya see I explained it to you.

    Have you provided the bill of materials and assembly instructions of a regulation major league baseball?

    No.

    Therefor you have not followed the instructions I provided.

    That you think your continued stupidity is meaningful discourse just further exposes the desperation of your position.

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, the aardvark thing is not really an example as it has absolutely nothing to do with determining the information content of an aardvark.

    Good to know.

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Now that it's clear that we can ignore the aardvark thing, we have to move on to the following question:

    Which is the proper way to encode the materials list?:

    1. 64 feet of nylon cord
    2. sixty-four feet of nylon cord
    3. 64 ft. of nylon cord
    4. Nylon cord--64 ft.

    Just this one item could vary the info content of a baseball by 55 bits.

    And that just leads to the question, aren't all of the abve equivalent? If so, why do they produce different information content calculations?

     
  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The aardvark EXAMPLE was an EXAMPLE of how to recognize specified information and how to count the bits to see if CSI is present.

    That is what it was for.

    That is all it was for.

    Ya see once you know how to do that and you are capable of following the methodology laid out, you should be good to go on determining information content.

    That said there are SPECIFIC assembly instructions and a SPECIFIC bill of materials for a regulation major league baseball.

    Nothing else will do.

    As for your materials list EXAMPLE- are you proud of your ignorance?

    I covered that already- more than once.

    But thanks for once again proving that your are nothing but a maggot munching piece of shit.

    I take it you are very proud of that.

    BTW if you add numbers to the equation that kicks the bits to 6 per character.

    Again that is something you would have understood if you were actually capable of following along.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    But why, Joe? Why can't we spell the numbers?

    And, I'll bet the materials list from Rawlings is different from the materials list from Spaulding. Which one do we use? Why?

     
  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, which of the Nylon cord examples is right? Or is there another one we should use? Why?

    These are the things you should cover in your example, Joe. Otherwise, it's not very helpful.

     
  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But why, Joe?

    Why what?

    Why can't we spell the numbers?

    No one said we can't.

    Why are you so ignorant that you can't understand the point?

    And, I'll bet the materials list from Rawlings is different from the materials list from Spaulding.

    Except that Rawlings is the only official major leagure baseball.

    So only Rawlings will do in this case.

    But thanks for the laugh you ignorant fuck.

    So, which of the Nylon cord examples is right? Or is there another one we should use? Why?

    These are the things you should cover in your example,


    I have already been over that you moron.

    As I said your inability to follow along doesn't mean anything to me.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW what is the nylon cord for?

    Why 64 feet of it?

     
  • At 1:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    an EXAMPLE, joe.

    Whatever string or cord they use, there is a length of it. What is the proper way to codify it:

    A. 64 ft.
    B. sixty-four feet
    C. sixty-four ft.
    D. some other way

    Which brings up the question, each of the above represent the exact same thing, why would that effect the information content of the finished product?

    Also, why would a French baseball have a different information content than an English baseball?

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An EXAMPLE of what?

    As for the proper way (to "codify") I have already been over that you ignorant fuck.

    What is your problem?

    Which brings up the question, each of the above represent the exact same thing, why would that effect the information content of the finished product?

    It wouldn't if you listen to me.

    But anyway keep grasping at straws.

    That way you will cement your position as an ignorqamus.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, which is it?

    And you completely ignored the more interesting question:

    Why would a French baseball have a different information content than an American baseball?

    Why would a French aardvark have a different information content than an Sweedish aardvark?

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, which is it?

    You are BOTH ignorant ANDdishonest.

    You are BOTH an anal licking faggot AND a puss-munching maggot.

    And you completely ignored the more interesting question:

    You have yet to post one.

    But thank you for admitting this thread has run its course...

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What about counting characters in a specific language equates to general information content?

     
  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What about counting characters in a specific language equates to general information content?

    How many times do I have to explain it to you?

    IOW why do you continue to think that your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But hey at least you are some-what on-topic- That is you keep proving that you are a clueless clown.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home