## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by wolfy
That's good news.
+1

2. Originally Posted by Geoff
Wow, can you make sure and tell me next time? I never noticed (absolutely true, I'm not being inflammatory, I *REALLY* didn't notice).
Haha. No kidding.

I take special amusement when people greatly overestimate their impact on something as trivial as an online forum.

Makes me wonder to what extent they exaggerate their importance in real life.

3. There's a war? How did I miss this?

Is this like dudes with masks throwing rocks at tanks or something slightly more substantial?

4. So he left or not? I've never seen someone create a "I'm leaving" thread and then successfully leave. Ever.

5. Leaving != resigning

6. Originally Posted by MacGuffin
Leaving != resigning
Well, in practice, leaving often does equal resigning. It would be more accurate to say resigning does not equal leaving. That would address Beat's error.

7. In mathematics, both sides of the equal sign are identical in value.
Don't mistake American semantics for mathematical semantics.

What you mean is leaving requires resignation (quitting) where resigning doesn't require departure.

Require != "="

Dig?

8. Originally Posted by Nocap
In mathematics, both sides of the equal sign are identical in value.
Don't mistake American semantics for mathematical semantics.

What you mean is leaving requires resignation (quitting) where resigning doesn't require departure.

Require != "="

Dig?
If the equal sign conveys a mutual identity, then that statement would still be wrong, since as I said, while resigning != leaving, leaving does = resiging.... Of course, if we are really going to waste our time with this much detail, it would be more accurate to say that leaving isn't so much equal to resigning as it is equal to or greater than (or less than, depending on how you're phrasing it).

Of course, if you said you were absolutely sure the value of leaving is greater or lesser than resigning, then it wouldn't be equal at all I suppose, but that would bring me to another point, which is, trying to apply this sort of mathematical logic to common language is stupid. I could probably always say X != Y. Even if X and Y were synonyms. This is because no two words convey the exact same value. Language works a bit different from equations, generally.

It would seem to make more sense if MacGuffin was just using those symbols to still convey something semantic, which is what I assumed. I am willing to bet that Mac was not thinking of all of these things when he made that post.

9. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
If the equal sign conveys a mutual identity, then that statement would still be wrong, since as I said, while resigning != leaving, leaving does = resiging
Still wrong.
Leaving contains resigning. It does not equal it. Resigning can take place separate of leaving. Ergo, they're not equal. Like I said, don't mistake American semantics with that of mathematics.

Of course, if we are really going to waste our time with this much detail, it would be more accurate to say that leaving isn't so much equal to resigning as it is equal to or greater than (or less than, depending on how you're phrasing it).
That's what I said...

Of course, if you said you were absolutely sure the value of leaving is greater or lesser than resigning, then it wouldn't be equal at all I suppose
Again... what I said.
but that would bring me to another point, which is, trying to apply this sort of mathematical logic to common language is stupid.
Agree. Welcome to the bigger picture.
I could probably always say X != Y. Even if X and Y were synonyms.
Also it's not a good idea to use C(++, #?) when you don't know what it is, and I think Guff doesn't know what it is.
This is because no two words convey the exact same value. Language works a bit different from equations, generally.

It would seem to make more sense if MacGuffin was just using those symbols to still convey something semantic
Actually Guff lucked out in that he's right: They're not equal. I can't see denying this.
which is what I assumed. I am willing to bet that Mac was not thinking of all of these things when he made that post.
He didn't need to. He knew they weren't equal.

10. Originally Posted by Nocap
Still wrong.
Leaving contains resigning. It does not equal it. Resigning can take place separate of leaving. Ergo, they're not equal. Like I said, don't mistake American semantics with that of mathematics.
I wonder if you start responding before reading the whole post.
There wasn't much of a point in writing that in light of some of the other things you responded to.

Originally Posted by Nocap
Agree. Welcome to the bigger picture.
I was already there. Hence my not analyzing the statement in terms of math.

Originally Posted by Nocap
Also it's not a good idea to use C(++, #?) when you don't know what it is, and I think Guff doesn't know what it is.
Sort of along the lines of what I was saying to begin withm though not exactly.

Originally Posted by Nocap
Actually Guff lucked out in that he's right: They're not equal. I can't see denying this.

Onr of the points I made, which you either missed or voluntarily ignored, is that if we are following those guidelines, then the statement is useless in that it is tautalogical.

Originally Posted by Nocap
He didn't need to. He knew they weren't equal.
And as I said... Saying they aren't equally in a mathematical sense is useless, and saying they aren't equal semantically wouldn't have been correct or actually addressed what Beat said.

I only thought MacGuffin's apparent error was worth of one line of correction, not really this conversation. Now I'm bored with this, and I'm right, regardless of what warped crap you come with from here, so good day.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO