IT'S TIME FOR ISRAEL TO RESPECT THE '67 BORDER AGREEMENT.

["RIVERS"]

['Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.]

There is no such thing as absolute proof.  All proof is absolute.  You need to invest in a dictionary and read it.  Anecdote?  Anecdotes do not enter into scientific method at any point.  An anecdote is a short story about a situation the teller experienced.  Scientific method is a bit more clinical and fastidious than that.

Logic is an absolute science, it's mathematical.  It's not a feeling or a suspicion, it's a hard science.  'Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.

Saying a hypothesis has to be proven to be law isn't flawed reasoning.  We call it scientific method.  If some portion of evidence exists to support a hypothesis but not enough to prove it outright - AND proof is likely unattainable by current means and methods - then the hypothesis can move to the realm of scientific theory.  Scientific law and scientific theory are end points for the beginning point of hypotheses.

BTW, this is all 5th grade science.  Where were you?  And none of this has anything to do with semantics.  Again, invest in a dictionary.

I do thank you a new saying I will make into T-shirts one day...pretty original, to quote---

'Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.
 

Thank you for the laugh.

["RIVERS"]

There is no such thing as absolute proof.  All proof is absolute.  You need to invest in a dictionary and read it.  Anecdote?  Anecdotes do not enter into scientific method at any point.  An anecdote is a short story about a situation the teller experienced.  Scientific method is a bit more clinical and fastidious than that.

Logic is an absolute science, it's mathematical.  It's not a feeling or a suspicion, it's a hard science.  'Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.

Saying a hypothesis has to be proven to be law isn't flawed reasoning.  We call it scientific method.  If some portion of evidence exists to support a hypothesis but not enough to prove it outright - AND proof is likely unattainable by current means and methods - then the hypothesis can move to the realm of scientific theory.  Scientific law and scientific theory are end points for the beginning point of hypotheses.

BTW, this is all 5th grade science.  Where were you?  And none of this has anything to do with semantics.  Again, invest in a dictionary.

Furthermore, I suspect you spend too much of your time looking-up words that folks post, then regurgitating the first definition you 'Google'. I hope you realize that most dictionaries have multiple meanings of a singular word. Not only that?, you may be surprised to learn that words may-be used in different forms in terms of language and such--nouns can be adjectives---or even adverbs sometimes.  

All kinds of meanings can be implied. Let me give you a 'for instance'---
Let's say I say "Fuck You Poe"...now of course, your ego would tell you I want to have sex with you. My meaning to you would be 'Fuck You Poe'.  Get it?

["RIVERS"]

as far as i am concerned we should pull out and let the middle east battle this out them selves . We have our own in house issues to deal with .

I wish we could do that, let them fight thier own battles and shit. That is not possible though. The World is small and our National Security is intertwined with maniacal fools that actually run (ruin) other countries. We can't ignore how the today's World is. We can't hide from truth that is front of us, I'd like to, but the problems won't magically disappear through isolationism as you suggest...we can't hide from the problems that we face as a Nation.

This is our time. I really believe that the next 2-5 years are going to be THE most amazing in the history of the World...either we, as the world get it together?...or there will be havoc and pretty much the end of society as we know.

[Poe]

Furthermore, I suspect you spend too much of your time looking-up words that folks post, then regurgitating the first definition you 'Google'. I hope you realize that most dictionaries have multiple meanings of a singular word. Not only that?, you may be surprised to learn that words may-be used in different forms in terms of language and such--nouns can be adjectives---or even adverbs sometimes.  

All kinds of meanings can be implied. Let me give you a 'for instance'---
Let's say I say "Fuck You Poe"...now of course, your ego would tell you I want to have sex with you. My meaning to you would be 'Fuck You Poe'.  Get it?

You said a whole lot of nothing.  You descended into ad hominem banter, a logical fallacy.  As I suspected you like to use the term logic but really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the discipline.

There are multiple variations of definitions for words but that does not imply that you can just use any word in any situation and not look like an idiot.  If you could just one time see yourself from the outside looking in you'd see what everyone else is always telling you.  I clarified your misuse of two words.  It was a necessary tact in order to display the flaws in your logic.  There is no proof which is more or less absolute than other proof.  Proof is mathematical, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.  And you said proof comes from anecdote which I can only assume was a misunderstanding of the word on your part.  If not I'd really love to have someone map out the logic behind the thought.

[Poe]

['Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.]

I do thank you a new saying I will make into T-shirts one day...pretty original, to quote---

'Logical' is a colloquial term synonymous with common sense, it has nothing to do with logic.
 

Thank you for the laugh.

That would be a good T-shirt.  I would wear it.  Looking at it again I would change "is a" to 'is mostly used as' but it's sill very true.  Logic is math.  Logical and common sense are parts of undisciplined thought and intuition.  They have nothing in common with the discipline of formal logic.  Scientific method is based in formal logic.

["RIVERS"]

You said a whole lot of nothing.  You descended into ad hominem banter, a logical fallacy.  As I suspected you like to use the term logic but really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the discipline.

There are multiple variations of definitions for words but that does not imply that you can just use any word in any situation and not look like an idiot.  If you could just one time see yourself from the outside looking in you'd see what everyone else is always telling you.  I clarified your misuse of two words.  It was a necessary tact in order to display the flaws in your logic.  There is no proof which is more or less absolute than other proof.  Proof is mathematical, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.  And you said proof comes from anecdote which I can only assume was a misunderstanding of the word on your part.  If not I'd really love to have someone map out the logic behind the thought.

Hmmm..is this how you talk in 'real life' and stuff?...when your hanging out with friends and a sipping a beer ---do actually speak this way???. I doubt that. Or at least I hope not.

I doubt that 'Poe'. I like you because your smart and witty (in a bluesy sort of way). I didn't sign on here to have someone try to vent anger and prove thier superiority (I have that at home)

I come here for some interesting banter is all. If you can't provide that?...I'm in the wrong room.

["RIVERS"]

[I]

You said a whole lot of nothing.  You descended into ad hominem banter, a logical fallacy.  As I suspected you like to use the term logic but really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the discipline.

There are multiple variations of definitions for words but that does not imply that you can just use any word in any situation and not look like an idiot.  If you could just one time see yourself from the outside looking in you'd see what everyone else is always telling you.  I clarified your misuse of two words.  It was a necessary tact in order to display the flaws in your logic.  There is no proof which is more or less absolute than other proof.  Proof is mathematical, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.  And you said proof comes from anecdote which I can only assume was a misunderstanding of the word on your part.  If not I'd really love to have someone map out the logic behind the thought.

I say so 'a whole lot of nothing?

sorry, but i had never met a person that regurgitates so many words yet says so little until i met you...well, maybe Ravana, but at least his words were interesting.