On Friday, 6 May 2022 at 08:29:38 UTC+1, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:11:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:38:06 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.
> > > Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
> > Empty heads think full statements are empty.
> Another empty statement, since it doesn't contain any arguments.
> At least do you have ripped a wisecrack from some celebrity or
> historical figure. I give you that.
> > Let's see, you wrongly started this, and wrongly kept it going. Misusing rational
> > logic. You are simply wrong because you started wring, and whatever you do
> > doesn't change that. Don't bring a fork to a sword fight and complain that
> > nobody is using a fork.
> Logic is always rational - that's a tautology. And it can be applied ANYWHERE.
> And I had no beef with you. So why are you discussing this in the first place?
> And what was invalid about my initial statement? Bring some arguments? So
> far all you have done - and continue to do - is restate a "tone" fallacy. And you
> can't undo a fallacy - unless is has been wrongly applied. No arguments have
> been given in that regard.
> > Now, as I've recovered from covid, after 6 weeks of mostly bad reactions to
> > twp vaccines before hand, and on top of the brain damage, and fighting off
> > a heap of stuff related to that.
> My father always said "There are two kind of problems in the world - my problem
> and not my problem". I'm sorry for you, but if you engage in a discussion and you're
> not up to the fight - if you choose the action, you choose the consequences that
> come with it. You own the action, now you own the consequences. You don't get
> any points for playing the victim.
> > I'm not interested in jumping to your command.
> Fair enough. But why should that be of interest to me?
> > You are a sub set of a sub set,
> I'm a set, a subset and a subset of a subset. By very definition. I'm probably also an
> element in a set (or subset). I'm probably also the intersection or union of sets and
> subsets. So in how far is this relevant?
> > claiming to be a full set, which you are not, nor do you perceive what the full set
> > is. There is a saying for that.
> I can claim to be a full set - and in some way that is probably true. The ultimate full
> set is probably the set of all sets, including those that contain themselves. Russell
> won't be happy with that - maybe you are..
> > You seem to be unable to reflect straight forwards statements to the past events,
> > and your actions they are about.
> Prove it. Make your case. I've already done it before, so no need to repeat that one.
> > Your statements about emotion, is just hidden emotional statements themselves.
> > You always seem to skirt seeing the things statements refer to.
> Well, that's another tautology. Let me break this down in simple premises:
> - Every human being experiences some form of emotions all the time;
> - Every human being that initiates an action is hence experiencing some form
> of emotion;
> - Since emotions permeate all human actions, it's impossible to have any action
> without any emotion;
> - I am a human, hence all my actions are permeated by some kind of emotion.
>
> Note I left out the precarious concept of "intentionality" here. But there are enough
> interesting premises to go into.
> > No true intelligence, is the inability to apply context or interpretation of context.
> Define context. it can be the circumstances that form the setting for an event,
> statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood - but also those
> parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word
> or passage and clarify its meaning.
>
> Next, you may define whatever you want - but if this definition is not accepted by
> the other party, it is moot. In any case, you seem to be constructing something
> pejorative - which I don't care about. Your opinion about me doesn't bear any
> significance to me.
> > That is how the real world works.
> Prove it. And while you're at it, define "the real world".
> > But, this is likely to produce yet another miniature rant about vague/empty
> > statements when it is you who are vague and empty.
> Every concept I use can be googled and studied.
> > And yes, your semi-intelligent use of knowledge, is disappointing,
> Again, why should I care about your opinion about me.
> > so don't by pass the mirror and pull that one.
> As much as you have the right not to be interested in jumping to my command,
> I have the right to reject your mirror.
> > If your life is about documentation, doing a forth language , good on you, doing
> > this stuff to other people is not significant.
> That's for other people to decide. Unless you're having some good statistics on
> "what other people think about 4tH" - which BTW I would be quite interested in -
> this is pure conjecture. And it's a "weasel speak" fallacy, BTW.
>
> All actions people take are by very definition arbitrary. I guess we have to occupy
> ourselves with something that is relevant to us in the grand waiting room of death..
>
> And given the energy death of the universe - what is significant?
> > Just self denial. When you look at it, I've really been wining constantly.
> .. and dining, believe me! ;-)
> > There's another example, struggle to think figuratively. Just self denial.
> Where is the fun in thinking figuratively? I mean, literally..
>
> The use of a (metaphorical) figure only has use when it is a good analog
> to a literal principle.
> > You have not quoted the rules that define the universe, have you?
> That would be a long list of rules.
> > You have been quoting subsets to avoid looking at greater rules.
> No, I use subsets of rules, because the others have no applicability.
> > Problem is, the common delusional technical type, is not going see that.
> Another pejorative term - you have a particular liking for that: as if I care -
> and I could state the same about any other, less rational people.
> > Even if I didn't the 40 hours showing everything you did wrong, you are
> > still Lely just to continue in firm and excuse it away, rather then put in
> > genuine effort to look at yourself, which is what this was all about.
> > The empty thing here, is your denial.
> Repeating the same stuff over and over again does not make it any more
> true. If I'm delusional, what are people that deny elementary logic?
> > That's be side you haven't used sound judgement of thought, isn't it?
> That's gibberish. There are sound arguments and valid arguments. Do
> you know the difference?
> > The fact that somebody has got their hand on the pulse of the beast,
> I'm not religious. Which shouldn't be too surprising.
> > has just sent you into continual denial. Because that is mostly what
> > you are doing.
> Explain to me - in words that I can understand - what I'm denying.
> > You didn't just say that? Can't you differentiate between subsets
> > and a level of authoritarian usage (another subset)? Your statement
> > illustrates the absolutism of the impoverished subset, I was talking
> > about. You have to start thinking, it's about what something "can" mean
> > not about what you want it to mean, or by some subset of knowledge.
> > But, I don't like having to address this stuff, but you seem to like annoying
> > with it.
> If you don't define the subsets, it's hard to differentiate between them.
> I don't know what is more impoverished than an empty set, you
> explain me. Every piece of knowledge is of course a subset, another
> tautology. Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.
>
> Hans Bezemer

HANS BEZEMER and WAYNE MORINELLI

F O R T H K I L L E R S A T WO R K

Peter F**** has gone quiet fortunately
Hugh Aguilar has gone rather quiet fortunately

BUT there are new people who seem to step forward in this function
and have nothing to say about Forth.
Just private silly fights.

They seem not to have email addresses that function yet,
otherwise they could fight as much as they like off-line and not bother us here.

Having their private silly fight here.
The word Forth is not even in it.

I feel rather sorry about the good work Howerd does for Forth and his post.

It seems I have to do some googling and send emails to NL Banks
to ask, if such behaviour is part of those Bank's work ethics of their employees or consultants.
Attaching the PDF of this post and a link for later usage.

Would probably be a good post on LinkedIN and other social platforms as well as discussion point
about acceptable behaviour of employees and consultants.
Or is work ethics just for others?

With Hugh and Testra I got a very nice feedback, as posted here as well;
let's try to repeat this with Dutch Banks.