Intelligent Reasoning

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

Sunday, December 25, 2011

RichTard Hughes, Proud to be an Ignorant Freak

-
RichTard Hughes is still in rare form. This it thinks that teh following is a specification:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer"

Obviously RichTard still thinks that its ignorance means something.

Merry Christams!

Specification (technical standard)

posted by Joe G @ 12:54 PM  

41 Comments:

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still can't define specify, Joe? Like design, you must know it when you see it.

     

  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I linked to it you cowardly dumbass.

     

  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Please show how Kevin gives a specification, (you clearly beleive he does) and I don't. Show your workings.

     

  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I never said he did- all he is doing is calling for some- dumbass.

     

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    and the packpeddling begins. So he's advocating common design by calling for specification? Make your case, if you can.

     

  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    JoeTard said...

    I linked to it you cowardly dumbass.

    So you did JoeTard:

    "A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service. Should a material, product or service fail to meet one or more of the applicable specifications, it may be referred to as being out of specification."

    ...but that points out a specification always comes before the design. It's a document that lays out the design goals and/or intentions.

    When you come across an existing object (like we go in biology) all you can produce an after-the-fact description of the object, not a specification.

    Apparently you're too much of a cowardly dumbass to understand the difference.

    Where is your before-the-fact specification for any biological object? How do you know the 'design' met the designer's specifications?

     

  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    BTW JoeTard, the following

    "I want something to cool me down in the summer"

    IS a specification, albeit a very loosely defined one.

    Specifications very rarely define how the goals are to be met. Usually they only care that the goals are met.

     

  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So he's advocating common design by calling for specification? Make your case, if you can.

    Well RichTard, if all fans have a control knob with positions 1,2 & 3 with 1 being the lowest, 2 being the intermediate and 3 being the highest setting because of the manufacturing specification tat said that is the standard, then all fans would have that common design due to the standard.

    and if the spec said speed 1 = 2,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 2 = 4,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 3 = 6,000 RPms +/- 5% then all fans would have taht common design based on the spec/ standard.

    However it is obvious that you are too stupid to understand any of that.

     

  • At 7:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    I want something to cool me down in the summer"

    IS a specification, albeit a very loosely defined one.

    No, it isn't. It is a GENERALIZATION. But thanks for proving my point- only imbeciles think it is a specification.

     

  • At 7:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    Where is your before-the-fact specification for any biological object?

    Ask the designer(s).

    Ya see, moron, it is obvious there was one because we know via observations and experiences taht complex, intergrated systems require it.

     

  • At 7:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service.

    Which obviously means that this:

    I want something to cool me down in the summer"

    cannot be a specification as it doesn't even meet the definition.

     

  • At 8:05 PM, Blogger Cubist said…

    sez joeg: "Thortard: 'Where is your before-the-fact specification for any biological object?'

    Ask the designer(s)."
    Asking the designer(s) of an object is indeed a good way to get at the specification of that object. When it comes to biological objects, however, there's a bit of a problem; who is the designer? And how can I make contact with this designer to ask them about their specification?

     

  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Cubist said…

    joeg sez, quoting from wikipedia: "A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service."

    joeg goes on to say: "Which obviously means that this:

    'I want something to cool me down in the summer'

    cannot be a specification as it doesn't even meet the definition."
    Hmm. "I want something to cool me down in the summer" isn't an explicit requirement?

     

  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cubshit:
    Hmm. "I want something to cool me down in the summer" isn't an explicit requirement?

    Nope.

    Given an explicit requirement you shouldn't be able to produce multiple different things, duh.

     

  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cubshit:
    When it comes to biological objects, however, there's a bit of a problem; who is the designer? And how can I make contact with this designer to ask them about their specification?

    Well if you had any brain-power you should be able to figure out the spec by studying the design. Or at least you should be able to figure out a spec.

    Ya see, moron, it is obvious there was one because we know via observations and experiences that complex, intergrated systems require it.

     

  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    explicit set of REQUIREMENTS- plural you moron...

     

  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps evotards should invest in a dictionary as they appear to be ignorant of the English language.

    Look up "explicit"...

     

  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW morons, one of the best ways to tell if you have written a good design specification is if you can give that spec to two different people or companies and if you get of the same thing back then your spec is explicit and you can proceed.

     

  • At 9:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ThorTard/ OA:
    IS a specification, albeit a very loosely defined one.

    No such thing as a very loosely defined specification. Either something is specified or it isn't.

    Strange how I am always falsely accused of trying to redefine words and evotards do it all the time.

    ThorTard/ OA:
    Specifications very rarely define how the goals are to be met.

    I know that and I told RichTard but doesn't undersatnd that though. Perhaps you can get through to him.

    ThorTard/ OA:
    Usually they only care that the goals are met.

    I know and that is what I told Richtard and he threw a hissy-fit.

     

  • At 9:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can you tell if something has a specification?

    If it has essential characteristics then it has a specification.

    But I doubt my evotard audience will understand what that means.

     

  • At 12:34 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    JoeTard said...

    BTW morons, one of the best ways to tell if you have written a good design specification is if you can give that spec to two different people or companies and if you get of the same thing back then your spec is explicit and you can proceed.

    A few years back the US Air Force came up with a specification for a new joint strike fighter aircraft. There were explicit requirements for size, weight, speed, minimum payload, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability, and hundreds of other different parameters.

    They gave the spec to both Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Boeing offered the X-32 while LockMart came up with the X-35.

    The designs have absolutely nothing in common except the basic airplane shape. They have different nose / air intake designs, different engines, different avionics, different radars, completely different ways of achieving VTOL. Both planes met the performance specifications, but the X-35 ultimately won out for lower projected long term cost considerations.

    I guess according to JoeTard logic that means the USAF wrote a bad spec because they were offered two totally different planes, right?

     

  • At 12:38 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    JoeTard said...

    How can you tell if something has a specification?

    If it has essential characteristics then it has a specification.

    Oh boy, "essential characteristics". The IDiot introduces yet another vague, undefined subjective term.

     

  • At 1:56 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "and if the spec said speed 1 = 2,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 2 = 4,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 3 = 6,000 RPms +/- 5% then all fans would have taht common design based on the spec/ standard."
    Who said anything about fans? why not heating elements? These clearly AREN'T specifications, per Joe G make it up as you go along rules.

    You never pass up an opportunity to flaunt your ignorance, do you Jim, erm, John Paul, er J-something.

     

  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Who said anything about fans?

    Kevin did you ignorant asshole.

    These clearly AREN'T specifications,

    Of course they are. Again YOUR ignorance is not a refutation.

     

  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can you tell if something has a specification?

    If it has essential characteristics then it has a specification.

    ThorTad/ OA:
    Oh boy, "essential characteristics".

    Yup, tat's right. And as predicted you are clueless about it.

     

  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ThorTard/ OA:
    I guess according to JoeTard logic that means the USAF wrote a bad spec because they were offered two totally different planes, right?

    It couldn't have been very explicit, which is a requirement of a good spec.

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To ThorTard/ OA,

    In the case of the AF the two fighters would have had all of the specs in common. And obviously that is all the AF cared about.

     

  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The actual quote:

    "Let’s set a blasted convention on what 1, 2, and 3 mean when dealing with fan speeds, heater warmth levels, and heating pads. On some, ’1′ is the fastest or hottest setting. On others, ’3′ is the fastest or hottest setting."

    YOU narrowed things (to just fans) beyond what was asked for , actually limiting design choice. You bad designer (and tard)

     

  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually I was trying to stick to ONE thing as it is obvious that you cannot focus on anything.

    But thanks for the cowardly responses...

     

  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Actually I was trying to stick to ONE thing..."

    But Kevin didn't.

    keep humping that strawman!

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another cowardly non-response from the Richtard.

     

  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No, it address the fact that you've changed the scope of the dialogue, which would be to create a strawman. Sorry these concepts are too hard for you.

     

  • At 6:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I didn't change anything. OTOH YOU tried to weasel out of the fact that you are an ignorant fuck.

    And you are still trying to weasel out of the fact that your ignorance has been exposed, again.

     

  • At 11:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I didn't change anything.

    More Joe lies. Shock. AGAIN, for you because you're dense:

    "Let’s set a blasted convention on what 1, 2, and 3 mean when dealing with fan speeds, heater warmth levels, and heating pads. On some, ’1′ is the fastest or hottest setting. On others, ’3′ is the fastest or hottest setting."

    YOU narrowed things (to just fans) beyond what was asked for , actually limiting design choice. You bad designer (and tard)

     

  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard,

    YOU are obvioulsy a confused fuck-head.

    1- YOU are so fuckig ignorant that YOU threw a hissy fit when I mentioned fans- and I mentioned fans because Kevin did

    2- I was NOT engaged in a dialog with Kevin

    3- I did not change a thing in my dialog wiith YOU

    4- Obvioulsy you are too fucked up to follow along

     

  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Please show how Kevin gives a specification, (you clearly beleive he does) and I don't. Show your workings.

    I never said he did- all he is doing is calling for some- dumbass.

    And then you started with your hissy-fit:
    and the packpeddling begins. So he's advocating common design by calling for specification? Make your case, if you can.

    Then I made my case:
    Well RichTard, if all fans have a control knob with positions 1,2 & 3 with 1 being the lowest, 2 being the intermediate and 3 being the highest setting because of the manufacturing specification tat said that is the standard, then all fans would have that common design due to the standard.

    and if the spec said speed 1 = 2,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 2 = 4,000 RPMs +/- 5% and speed 3 = 6,000 RPms +/- 5% then all fans would have taht common design based on the spec/ standard.

    However it is obvious that you are too stupid to understand any of that.

    And as predicted you didn't understand it:
    Who said anything about fans? why not heating elements? These clearly AREN'T specifications, per Joe G make it up as you go along rules.

    And as I said KEVIN brought up fans and I only need ONE EXAMPLE to make my case, which I did.

    And as predicted you threw a hissy-fit and started falsely assusing me of something just because you are too fucking stupid to follow along.

    Not that you can grasp any of that.

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wrong wrong wrongity wrong. You're not accurately representing the entirety of what he said. Keep humping that strawman.

    ;-)

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow you will just say anything- you are a pathetic piece of shit

     

  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And thank you for continuing to support the title of this thread.

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Might want to learn what a strawman is at some point, as you hump them so much.

     

  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great, more false accusations.

    Go figure...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home