Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Harold14370

Thread: The Science of Semantics?

  1. #1 The Science of Semantics? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Hi! I noticed Moderators in here claim that Semantics is no Science or no Scientific activity...
    Also I noted that the general poster shows poor Semantic ability.So what IS "Semantics".
    Hopefully somebody else will appear in here "shoveling quotes down your throats".

    I will now start working: General Semantics deals with signs and concepts of all kinds...Im not
    myself into it. Let it be taken care of by the linguists for all I care. I work in the foundations of Logic!
    This ordinarily would imply Formal Logic... but NO!

    There was Logic before the "formalists" appeared on stage making Logic unaccessible
    to laymen. It will take me some patience to work this through in a Scientific Manner
    and I will begin with a Coffe Break: Do you mind? (to be edited and continued.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Do we have to go through this crap again?


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Hi! I noticed Moderators in here claim that Semantics is no Science or no Scientific activity...
    Also I noted that the general poster shows poor Semantic ability.So what IS "Semantics".
    Hopefully somebody else will appear in here "shoveling quotes down your throats".

    I will now start working: General Semantics deals with signs and concepts of all kinds...Im not
    myself into it. Let it be taken care of by the linguists for all I care. I work in the foundations of Logic!
    This ordinarily would imply Formal Logic... but NO!

    There was Logic before the "formalists" appeared on stage making Logic unaccessible
    to laymen. It will take me some patience to work this through in a Scientific Manner
    and I will begin with a Coffe Break: Do you mind? (to be edited and continued.)
    Isn't samantics just a way of sweating the small stuff so you can avoid the big issues, just really like another form of procrastination or even fear in a sense, surely semantics just are just like a minor issue that you quickly deal with along with big stuff but anything to be of any real concern.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    A semantics thread is at least correctly placed in the philosophy forum. And that is where it should stay.

    It is not an issue in science. Science uses normal English words (or other languages) in special applications. Those specific applications come with tightly defined meanings.

    There is no scope for the kind of argument that arises in philosophy where 'meaning' is the topic of discussion. Science completely obliterates any such philosophical discussion by saying, explicitly, that this word in this topic means this concept and no other. Semantics is not possible within science itself.

    It fools a lot of untrained entrants entering into discussion of some disciplines. Take rational, irrational and transcendental numbers as an example from another thread. There is no scope for a discussion about the usual variety of meanings and applications of these adjectives. They have a categorical meaning, one meaning only, in mathematics and there is no discussion possible about them. There is only explanation of what they mean in mathematics and how to avoid mixing the categories up.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    I WAS going to do something else Mylady but I cant resist you
    You say:
    "There is no scope for the kind of argument that arises in philosophy where 'meaning' is the topic of discussion. Science completely obliterates any such philosophical discussion by saying, explicitly, that this word in this topic means this concept and no other. Semantics is not possible within science itself."

    Im afraid your knowledge of philosophy and semantics is close to nil in my eyes: You probably learned that
    " 'meaning' is the topic of discussion" From Wittgenstein or any other philosopher with positivist
    tendency....Positivism seems to claim that "meaning" is vital to philosophy and furthermore that
    philosophical confusements are based on "meaning"-less concepts or sentences.

    "Let the children play"... I say...

    Neither Sophism nor Positivism is at heart of Philosophy nor Semantics.
    I rest assured you will not show proof of the truth of your statements!


    At heart of philosophy is "wisdom" and at heart of semantics is "truth": "meaning" can be left to linguistics (Davidsson) or psychology (Freud?). WE dont need it! Do you understand the first lesson? Or were you polishing your nails and filing your teeth? Didnt you see I called on denotation...NOT...meaning as basic concept.
    Did you mean(ha ha) the meaning of "#"?

    Something described, explained or named by "x"... is the thing described, explained or named by "y"... if and only if #y# = #x#.

    Old fashioned semanticians, like Frege, uses indeed the concept "meaning" but its not a necessary concept according to me AND YOU! So shall we consider that point proven? Neither as Philosopher, Semantician or Logician shall I use the concept "meaning", when you are near, other then to make fun of you.

    Just in passing: Some sophistry I will teach: Honorable parts...and one such is the principle of using the opponents weapons against them... Since Lady adeleid denied the usefulness of meaning in order to trap me
    I turned it against her by also denying it. ... What I really think of "meaning"? ... Bribe me and Ill tell:

    (Notice that trolls cant use the principle...why?)

    While were at it I might as well be philosophical about it.
    After all I am a philosopher not a scientist...
    As most philosophers know,
    scientists are philosophers with a salary...poor things!

    Scientist:So YOU say, sigurdV... that YOU are a philosopher?
    Do you mean one should try to acquire wisdom?

    No old pal! Dont try to become wise! (And thats enough for today folks.)
    Last edited by sigurdV; January 2nd, 2013 at 05:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Neither Sophism nor Positivism is at heart of Philosophy nor Semantics.
    I rest assured you will not show proof of the truth of your statements!
    The truth of my statements is that I really couldn't care less.

    I've attended and hosted far too many dinner parties, shared too many tables in bars and clubs where all but a few of the other participants were philosophy faculty staff. I've also read a lot of classic texts, proofread the occasional pages of theses, oohed and aahed over someone's successful submission to a journal, but too many decades ago, or too much just a social convention, for my passing interest to have allowed more than a few scattered remnants to stay in my reluctant memory.

    But I do maintain that philosophy - any topic - and any specific science topic Do. Not. Mix. Even philosophy of science is at too much of a meta level to be of any use or relevance in any given science thread on this forum.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Neither Sophism nor Positivism is at heart of Philosophy nor Semantics.
    I rest assured you will not show proof of the truth of your statements!
    The truth of my statements is that I really couldn't care less.
    What is it you couldnt care less about Mylady? Hostess duties? Are you deliberately vague and evasive all the time everywhere at once?
    For all I care you can serve your guests catpi** and horse du**, ... in particular if they are the sophists calling themselves "Academic" Philosophers... hmmm...if that was the way you were exposed to the subject then that would explain your low opinion of philosophy!

    I WAS going to ... er... ahem... no need predicting in advance what comes next ... dont you agree?
    You would surely hit me on my head with A Treatise of Human Understanding were I to put it in your hands.

    Hi ALL! Its early morning here (er...no...I overslept...its in the middle of the day... I observe.)
    There are some ...er... #Pressing Circumstances# I have immediately to attend to: IBB.
    Why dont check a quote while im in purgatory...
    zinjanthropos
    Forum Professor
    Could we ever become so deluded as to think in terms of intergalactic war? That is of course if we find some other intelligence(s) out there competing for the same resources. Not that with billions of interplanetary systems to exploit there would be a great demand for certain materials, but who the hell knows? Even if we don't ever come across another intelligence then do we still need to worry about our closest neighbours here on Earth? I shudder to think that humanity would continue their conflicts in the outer recesses of space over disagreements on how to divvy up the universe's booty or territory.

    So in case intergalactic travel develops will mankind need to keep their aggressive and sometimes violent characteristics? Would simply getting off the planet instill a more passive attitude within our ascendents' tendencies. Would intelligent beings need to resort to violence in a bountiful universe? I remember these thoughts popping into my head the first time I watched Star Wars, how ridiculous it seemed to me that a race would want to control a galaxy and kill for it. As if there wasn't enough galaxy for everyone. The thought of war expanding to a universal level seems even more ludicrous.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume]
    Correction: Its "David Hume". (Just another indefinite identifier.)
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I've attended and hosted far too many dinner parties, shared too many tables in bars and clubs where all but a few of the other participants were philosophy faculty staff. I've also read a lot of classic texts, proofread the occasional pages of theses, oohed and aahed over someone's successful submission to a journal, but too many decades ago, or too much just a social convention, for my passing interest to have allowed more than a few scattered remnants to stay in my reluctant memory.

    But I do maintain that philosophy - any topic - and any specific science topic Do. Not. Mix. Even philosophy of science is at too much of a meta level to be of any use or relevance in any given science thread on this forum.
    I accept your challenge Mylady Please explain to us why the writings of Hobbes,Locke and Hume are irrelevant to/in Science:
    In particular their philosophical idea that the only way to scientific knowledge is through our senses. Wont you yourself use the philosophy sometimes? For example when you discuss Extra Sensory Perception? Or discussing the merits of Quoting? Surely you dont think there are better ways to acquire knowledge: prejudgement or divine inspiration?
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 30th, 2012 at 08:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I don't have a "low" opinion of philosophy, I'm just not interested. I'm not evasive about anything. (Though I can do a first-rate dinner party - even a vegetarian one.) My not very keen interest in philosophy was entirely exhausted by the time I was 35, having proofread a thesis, twice, on epistemology without being excited about a single page. I haven't picked up any such book for 30 years. My husband is still pretty enthusiastic and I'm happy to talk with him about his interests. I'm content to let my professorial friends, one of whom is some kind of world class logician, blather on about their interests if they come up, though we tend to focus mainly on normal topics among groups of friends, like whose grandchildren have started school, whose child is attending which overseas university and how local university politics play out. But I'm just. not. interested. in. philosophy.

    I also have friends and relatives who are expert car and motorcycle mechanics. I'll happily engage in their conversations too but I won't remember anything much of what's been said on those occasions either. They don't interest me now, though 40+ years ago I happily worked on my own and my then husband's cars and took some interest in conversations on those topics. I have no interest in this stuff either.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I don't have a "low" opinion of philosophy, I'm just not interested. I'm not evasive about anything. (Though I can do a first-rate dinner party - even a vegetarian one.) My not very keen interest in philosophy was entirely exhausted by the time I was 35, having proofread a thesis, twice, on epistemology without being excited about a single page. I haven't picked up any such book for 30 years. My husband is still pretty enthusiastic and I'm happy to talk with him about his interests. I'm content to let my professorial friends, one of whom is some kind of world class logician, blather on about their interests if they come up, though we tend to focus mainly on normal topics among groups of friends, like whose grandchildren have started school, whose child is attending which overseas university and how local university politics play out. But I'm just. not. interested. in. philosophy.

    I also have friends and relatives who are expert car and motorcycle mechanics. I'll happily engage in their conversations too but I won't remember anything much of what's been said on those occasions either. They don't interest me now, though 40+ years ago I happily worked on my own and my then husband's cars and took some interest in conversations on those topics. I have no interest in this stuff either.
    We are entitled to our own opinion...so the following is not a statement only an opinion?
    (Like saying potatoes and meatballs is not an appetising mix?)

    But I do maintain that philosophy - any topic - and any specific science topic Do. Not. Mix.

    If so I think we can leave the subject of personal bias behind us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Sigurd, would it not have been advisable, in a thread on semantics, to have understood the meaning of the word? Or do you find, as in discussions on science, that facts simply cramp your style? @Adelady - unusually for you, your appreciation of philosophy betrays a serious lack on your part. Perhaps you think that thinking about thought is self indulgent. So is breathing, but without life is quite short.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    So is breathing, but without life is quite short.
    So is peeing. But you don't necessarily want to spend a lot of time thinking about it.

    Now a urologist might make a good study on it. I might appreciate that, someday. He can think about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    The topic is:The Science of Semantics?

    And if semantic is a Science then the thread is perhaps not strictly in its proper subforum?
    Excuse my opinion, but why not let things stay the way they are?
    The idea of putting everything in its proper place is problematic.

    Lets experiment:
    1 On the paper you write:This paper is not in its proper place.
    2 On your wastebasket you write: For truths only!
    3 Should the paper be put in the wastebasket?

    Questions/comments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Sigurd, would it not have been advisable, in a thread on semantics, to have understood the meaning of the word?.
    Youre welcome anyway. Dont let your ignorance of semantics stop you from participating in this thread.
    I will try to upgrade you on the matter IF you show some signs of basic understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Or do you find, as in discussions on science, that facts simply cramp your style?
    I must inform you that, this far,everything you have said was based on opinion not on fact.
    Are you really able to recognise a fact? Then post it in here. It may be of some use. Thank you.

    In the meantime Ill collect quotes of philosophical interest. How do you guys like this modern variation of Zenons paradox?

    Originally Posted by newscience
    The most common answer I find (...to where the big bang occurred ...sV remarks...) is that it occurred everywhere but I am wondering about this. If all the galaxys are moving away from each other cannot we reverse their courses and at the point they intersect is where the big bang took place? Any replies will be helpful. Thanks



    sigurdV: A part of the difficulty resides in visualising a whole universe contracting into a single point.
    In a single point there are no LINES able to intersect anywhere.

    An "easier" example: Imagine you begin diving into an angle. Entering the letter "V" from upwards.
    As you fall towards the point of intersection you will not reach it unless you shrink yourself so as to escape collision with the walls.

    But THAT enlarges the picture and it seems as if you have not moved closer to the intersection...
    How then can you ever imagine entering it?
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 30th, 2012 at 02:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    There was Logic before the "formalists" appeared on stage making Logic unaccessible
    to laymen.
    I would classify myself as a layman, as philosophy is not my profession. However, I much prefer the logic of the "formalists." What you call "logic" I find totally unaccessible, and strongly suspect it is simply nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What you call "logic" I find totally unaccessible, and strongly suspect it is simply nonsense.
    It's certainly incomprehensible. The day I opened a philosophy journal and saw notation far more complex and mystifying than anything ever seen in physics, I knew I'd never ever bother to find out what my friends were talking about.

    (Sort of like finding out that that nice person you next door neighbour will be inviting to the next casual tennis morning is actually rated internationally. Just don't bother playing.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What you call "logic" I find totally unaccessible, and strongly suspect it is simply nonsense.
    It's certainly incomprehensible. The day I opened a philosophy journal and saw notation far more complex and mystifying than anything ever seen in physics, I knew I'd never ever bother to find out what my friends were talking about.

    (Sort of like finding out that that nice person you next door neighbour will be inviting to the next casual tennis morning is actually rated internationally. Just don't bother playing.)
    You have my symphathy in this matter. WE have been opponents for a while but from my side it has never been personal and I sincerely wish to repair any damage I may have caused:

    I Am Lecturing. In My Specialty. I will try to make clear what Philosophy,Semantics and Logic SHOULD be but maybe , at least not obviously, isnt. It will take me Space,Time and Patience. Please accept impatient and provocative me as your temporary host.

    A basic tool is "abstraction" the term needs explanation and I think some explanation was given in my previous post (ha ha : actually post#17) when I replaced the TERMS in a syllogism with VARIABLES. Abstracting is also used in a not substitutive sense... by taking away what is unecessary it is easier to see what is said. And to access its truth and appliability. According to Newton every force has ...arghhh! forget it! no metaphores sig!

    I mean: concepts have inverses so together with the concept of Abstraction theres its inverse: Exemplification. And a sensible (?) conjecture is that this is all there is to it!

    Is Basic Logic the science of abstraction and exemplification?

    How do we check? Any suggestion?
    Can science work without using the concepts?

    Summary of lesson one:
    1 The basic semantic concept is "denotation". Provocatively exemplified in "###".
    2 Exercise: Is "meaning" the inverse of "denotation"?
    3 Dont believe your teacher: Try to prove him wrong!
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 31st, 2012 at 05:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    There was Logic before the "formalists" appeared on stage making Logic unaccessible
    to laymen.
    I would classify myself as a layman, as philosophy is not my profession. However, I much prefer the logic of the "formalists." What you call "logic" I find totally unaccessible, and strongly suspect it is simply nonsense.
    Logic began when syllogisms were discovered.
    A syllogism was the logical form of of an argument.
    The most well known is probably this one:

    1 all humans are mortal
    2 socrates is a human
    3 socrates is mortal

    The greek philosophers and Ancient Logicians noted that if we replace the terms the argument is still valid:

    1 all laymen are administrators
    2 Harold14370 is a layman
    3 Harold14370 is an administrator

    By "valid" was meant that sentence 3 (called conclusion) is true if the two
    earlier sentences(called premises) are true.

    They went further and realised that the terms need not have any MEANING! at all.
    The argument is still valid because it is a syllogism!
    (Whatever is meant by that semantic concept. It will be returned to. All I do say now is that it seems "circular")

    1 all gibrizes are umpsread
    2 schlotslifp is a gibrize
    3 schlotslifp is umpsread

    Of course the latest syllogism is nonsensical in the STYLE
    of Lewis Carroll
    but its logical form is not nonsensical!

    The last step is to use variables instead of terms...
    1 All x are Z
    2 y is an x
    3 y is a Z

    Out if this discovery later your favorite type of logic: formalism, was invented:

    I cant at the same time: use and define terms
    and defend my arguments from unjust accusations.

    Notice that
    1 all moderators mob sigurdV
    2 you are a moderator
    3 you mob sigurdV

    I think that YOU think that "sigurdV does not like formalism"!
    You are wrong Sir! Its a tool among tools
    What he objects to is selecting formalism for all purposes.

    For the records...
    Please verify that YOU really think this primitive logic of syllogisms,
    that was the origin of what now is known as formalism, IS and WAS nonsense.
    That sigurdV is not telling things as they are and nor were.
    And that in your opinion life is simpler without Ancient logic and sigurdV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    For the records...
    Please verify that YOU really think this primitive logic of syllogisms,
    that was the origin of what now is known as formalism, IS and WAS nonsense.
    No, I don't think syllogisms are nonsense.
    That sigurdV is not telling things as they are and nor were.
    And that in your opinion life is simpler without Ancient logic and sigurdV.
    Life is not simpler without ancient logic, if by ancient logic you mean syllogism. Life is simpler without SigurdV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Lesson two
    It might strike a beginning student of logic as peculiar that the question of what Truth IS and how we find out whether something is True is not considered as belonging to logic. The teacher adhering to the study plan will tell you that the questions belong to Semantics:

    All a logician needs to know is if any term of a formula is true or not but what that MEANS is of no concern. All that interests him is whether the terms has the undefined quality in question or not. And he will generally call the denoted quality "truthvalue" to make certain he need not admit anything to be true.

    This applies as far as I know to the Western Philosophy Departments where topics such as Medieval Logic, Ancient Logic, Semantics , Sophistry ,Rhetorics, Eastern Philosophy... (to mention a few possiblies) rarely are studied). I will stick to foundational business and not venture far from Semantics and Science ... subjects mentioned in the topic. So unless I will edit this out later we begin with:
    The Concept of Truth.

    (to be continued)
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 31st, 2012 at 10:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Lesson two
    ??!!? This is not a personal blog.

    Your contributions might be better received if you avoided giving the impression that you regard this as a personal platform for disseminating whatever ideas you have.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Lesson two
    ??!!? This is not a personal blog.

    Your contributions might be better received if you avoided giving the impression that you regard this as a personal platform for disseminating whatever ideas you have.
    -Thank you Mylady for your "kind advice".
    But I assure you I have no interest
    in presenting "personal ideas"
    I just tell the truth,
    Preferably disguised as ideas of mine

    Here is an abstract syllogism:
    1 xZ (=The general form of a statement)
    2 x = "xZ" (=The definition of self reference)
    3 "xZ"Z (=Conclusion)

    As a result the following is a logical truth.

    Either it is not true that x = "xZ" or it is true that "xZ"Z

    I was going to explain the above
    but you probably would not understand anyway.
    But Harold is a formalist, I suppose he can manage:

    The Ancient problem for the concept of truth is the following:

    1 sentence 1 is not true
    2 sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"
    3 "sentence 1 is not true" is not true

    Harold: Tell me WHY sentence three obviously does not logically follow from its premises!

    (to be edited and/or continued?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I was going to explain the above but you probably would not understand anyway.
    I doubt that there's a very large readership for this thread. Insulting the readers you do have is not the optimum strategy for creating or maintaining any interest they have.

    If you want to explain your ideas in a way that draws in others, you need to introduce them in a reasonable step by step manner. Instead of telling readers that they're too stupid or too uneducated to follow the argument, a competent teacher introduces opportunities or natural breakpoints where questions or revisiting the material already described doesn't interrupt the flow of thought or logic if others ask for more detail.

    Introducing unfamiliar material does not require telling others that the self-described "teacher" is smarter than everyone else. neener, neener, naah. It's about being the best guide you can be to encourage others to want to follow the path you set out.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    The Ancient problem for the concept of truth is the following:

    1 sentence 1 is not true
    2 sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"
    3 "sentence 1 is not true" is not true

    Harold: Tell me WHY sentence three obviously does not logically follow from its premises!

    (to be edited and/or continued?)
    Because sentence 1 is nonsense, paradoxical and cannot be either true or false?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I was going to explain the above but you probably would not understand anyway.
    I doubt that there's a very large readership for this thread. Insulting the readers you do have is not the optimum strategy for creating or maintaining any interest they have.

    If you want to explain your ideas in a way that draws in others, you need to introduce them in a reasonable step by step manner. Instead of telling readers that they're too stupid or too uneducated to follow the argument, a competent teacher introduces opportunities or natural breakpoints where questions or revisiting the material already described doesn't interrupt the flow of thought or logic if others ask for more detail.

    Introducing unfamiliar material does not require telling others that the self-described "teacher" is smarter than everyone else. neener, neener, naah. It's about being the best guide you can be to encourage others to want to follow the path you set out.
    You are correct. My only defence is that you are insulting me
    every time you speak to me. I will now introduce the idea
    that you are not aware of this
    and I will pretend I dont understand your insinuations:

    Yes! Why not take things one step a time?
    Lets go to the trashcan and pick up this statement of mine you put there:

    (0) To each and every "statement" there corresponds an "identifier" and a "conclusion"

    Example:
    1 statement (
    This is a statement.)
    2 identifier ("This" = "This is a statement.")
    3 conclusion (
    "This is a statement." is a statement.)

    This is (almost) all there is to it unless explanations are called for

    Post Scriptum: I advice anyone not to write anything because it attract readers,
    Write what you feel is #right# irrespectively of its consequences.
    (End of Lesson two.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I was going to explain the above but you probably would not understand anyway.
    I doubt that there's a very large readership for this thread.
    Insulting the readers you do have is not the optimum strategy
    for creating or maintaining any interest they have.

    If you want to explain your ideas in a way that draws in others, you need to introduce them in a reasonable step by step manner. Instead of telling readers that they're too stupid or too uneducated to follow the argument, a competent teacher introduces opportunities or natural breakpoints where questions or revisiting the material already described doesn't interrupt the flow of thought or logic if others ask for more detail.

    Introducing unfamiliar material does not require telling others that the self-described "teacher" is smarter than everyone else. neener, neener, naah. It's about being the best guide you can be to encourage others to want to follow the path you set out.
    You are correct. My only defence is that you are insulting me
    every time you speak to me. I will now introduce the idea
    that you are not aware of this
    and I will pretend I dont understand your insinuations:

    Hey! Why not take things one step a time?
    Lets go to the trashcan
    and pick up this statement of mine
    you put there:

    (0) To each and every "statement" there corresponds an "identifier" and a "conclusion"

    Example:
    1 statement (
    This is a statement.)
    2 identifier (
    "This" = "This is a statement.")
    3 conclusion (
    "This is a statement." is a statement.)

    This is (almost) all there is to it unless explanations are called for.

    Post Scriptum: I advice anyone not to write anything because it will attract,
    Write what you feel is #right#... irrespectively of its consequences.

    Solution to the exercise:
    1 suppose that x = " x is not true " then...
    2 x is true if, and only if, "x is not true" is true
    3 therefore it is not true that x = "x is not true"

    4 this means the identifier in the supposed "paradox" is:
    both logically false and empirically true.
    5 And no conclusion follows from it.

    6 Conclusion: Paradoxes are the result of defect identifiers.

    Exercise: Prove statement Zero.
    (End of Lesson two?)
    Last edited by sigurdV; January 2nd, 2013 at 01:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Sigurd,

    I don't find this line of discussion remotely interesting, so I'm going to drop out. Is this leading somewhere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I don't find this line of discussion remotely interesting, so I'm going to drop out.
    I'm out as well.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Well So Long Then!

    Try Asking Scientific Questions in Future Threads
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    (Yawn).....

    Like most philosophy, of which I was unfortunately enough to take three colleges classes in (and do very well), it ultimately goes way beyond the point of usefulness and boils down to mental masturbation of meaningless drivel.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    (Yawn).....

    Like most philosophy, of which I was unfortunately enough to take three colleges classes in (and do very well), it ultimately goes way beyond the point of usefulness and boils down to mental masturbation of meaningless drivel.
    Do you think your statement has any Scientific merit?
    Lets discuss Real Philosophers insteady of your vague concept of "Philosophy".
    Name some Philosophers producing "mental masturbation of meaningless drivel."
    If your list goes: Hegel, Heidegger,Sartre etc... I will not oppose you.
    I assure you that my list of Philosophers looks very different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Sartre
    I once read "Being and Nothingness," just because it was a famous, and I assumed, important book. Having read it, I still didn't know what it was about. If you asked me to summarize it in a paragraph or a sentence, I couldn't do it.
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Do you think your statement has any Scientific merit?
    It wasn't meant to...which is why I'm glad you put this in the philosophy subforum. Surely you didn't start this thread because you thought it might.

    There's a reason why science and philosophy went different roads about 3 centuries ago, science was useful in figuring out how the real world works, philosophy usually wasn't.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Sartre
    I once read "Being and Nothingness," just because it was a famous, and I assumed, important book. Having read it, I still didn't know what it was about. If you asked me to summarize it in a paragraph or a sentence, I couldn't do it.
    I dont accept any "Existential Philosophers"... except maybe Kierkegaard.
    Popper, Einstein , Hume, Aristoteles ,Parmenides and Thales are Philosophers in my view.
    (I have even some trouble in accepting Kant! What did he really accomplish?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Sartre
    I once read "Being and Nothingness," just because it was a famous, and I assumed, important book. Having read it, I still didn't know what it was about. If you asked me to summarize it in a paragraph or a sentence, I couldn't do it.
    I could: "I am French, you know and ze women zey love me when I am deep and mysterious."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Sartre
    I once read "Being and Nothingness," just because it was a famous, and I assumed, important book. Having read it, I still didn't know what it was about. If you asked me to summarize it in a paragraph or a sentence, I couldn't do it.
    I could: "I am French, you know and ze women zey love me when I am deep and mysterious."
    I think his wife deserves more attention than he does...but Ive forgotten her name...anyone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Jean Paul Sartre. Simone de Beauvoir. They never married, they weren't even monogamous.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Do you think your statement has any Scientific merit?
    It wasn't meant to...which is why I'm glad you put this in the philosophy subforum. Surely you didn't start this thread because you thought it might.

    There's a reason why science and philosophy went different roads about 3 centuries ago, science was useful in figuring out how the real world works, philosophy usually wasn't.
    When did this separation take place according to you? Before or after English Empirism?
    And what philosophers do you consider remained "philosophers" while sane and respectable ppl like rats abandoned ship?
    As you perhaps noted I dont read History the way you do. Philosophy is still Strong and Healthy more or less outside the Philosophy Departments: Unscientific Philosophy doesnt exist. Only unscientific Philosophy Teachers and Students.
    You declared yourself to be one didnt you?

    PS I would appreciate some more exactitude:
    sigurdV: Do you think your statement has any Scientific merit?
    Lynx_Fox: It wasn't meant to...which is why I'm glad you put this in the philosophy subforum. Surely you didn't start this thread because you thought it might.

    Notice your use of "it" and "this"...its sloppy!...unscientific!
    Will you replace so Im sure I understand you correctly?
    What you are mumbling about?
    Last edited by sigurdV; January 3rd, 2013 at 10:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Jean Paul Sartre. Simone de Beauvoir. They never married, they weren't even monogamous.
    Why do I feel an interest here? Is she a feminist hero?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    She wrote The Second Sex, one of the best texts underpinning second wave feminism. (Along with Friedan's The Feminine Mystique and, in 1970, Greer's The Female Eunuch.)

    She wrote it in 1949 but 2nd wave feminism didn't really take off until the late 60s.

    Simone de Beauvoir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    She wrote The Second Sex, one of the best texts underpinning second wave feminism. (Along with Friedan's The Feminine Mystique and, in 1970, Greer's The Female Eunuch.)

    She wrote it in 1949 but 2nd wave feminism didn't really take off until the late 60s.

    Simone de Beauvoir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Enemies can assist each other! Please inform me on the development of feminism up to the latest hysteric female world famous authoress. Its an important subject to be placed in any respectable Book Shelf. Also Id like you to find out about female philosophers...the only one coming to mind at the whim of the moment is: Emmy Noether I think she was an unusually clever Matematican. Perhaps some brain dead formalist visitor could popularise her achievmentS in here so I (or anyone for that matter) can evaluate it?

    Remark: I dont accept ANY borderline between Philosophy and Science...they have a common border separating from charlatanism...Dont go in there unless there are funny examples to look at: Some Chauvinist Male Pigs perhaps?

    Them ladies are knocking at my shoulder...now: Voltaire perhaps had a lady and ...er... Babbage also had one.
    Also: Otto Hahn stole some female original idea in splitting the atom...The slow neutron was it?
    Them lazy logicians are snoring at the moment so lets give feminism a helping hand in the meantime...Shall we?
    Who was the best female logician/matematician ever...Hypatia?

    Post Scrotum:Id like some assistance in "How to construct a self sufficient space station" in the Pseudo Science Forum...Id like to see acid feminist harassments on my plans for a Breeding Center on the Moon! Welcome Mylady!
    Last edited by sigurdV; January 3rd, 2013 at 05:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Hysteric?!!?

    Perhaps if you reframed this request in a manner that doesn't belittle or demean or insult women writers and scholars, you might get a similarly respectful reply.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well I have say kudos for making an entire thread out of semantics, lol.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hysteric?!!?

    Perhaps if you reframed this request in a manner that doesn't belittle or demean or insult women writers and scholars, you might get a similarly respectful reply.
    The term was used to prevent your doing what really is best for feminism.
    It was meant as an elementary example of obstructive use of semantic knowledge

    I think it only goes to prove that if you want something done, you should leave it to the males.

    I think you have agreed with my opponents claiming that Philosophy is a Useless Occupation?
    So according to you the following is a list of incompetent females producing useless thoughts?


    A list of female philosophers ordered alphabetically by surname:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Marie de Gournay (1565–1645)D2
    Celia Green (born 1935)
    Marjorie Grene (1910-2009)
    Susan Haack (born 1945)W
    Sally Haslanger
    Ágnes Heller (born 1929)
    Heloise (1101–1162)D2
    Mary Hesse (born 1924)
    Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179)D1 R
    Hipparchia of Maroneia (4th century BC)
    Jennifer Hornsby (born 1951)O
    Rosalind Hursthouse
    Hypatia of Alexandria (370–415)C R
    Luce Irigaray (born 1930)C O R
    Emily Elizabeth Constance Jones (1848–1922)
    Martha Klein
    Christine Korsgaard
    Julia Kristeva (born 1941)C O R
    Susanne Langer (1895–1985)O R W
    Michčle Le Dœuff (born 1948)O R
    Leontion (4th century BC)
    Hilde Lindemann
    Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)R
    Catherine Macaulay (1731–1791)G
    Penelope Maddy
    Ruth Barcan Marcus (1921-2012)C O
    Harriet Martineau (1802–1876)R W
    Damaris Cudworth Masham (1659–1708)A B C R
    Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210–1285)G
    Mary Midgley (born 1919)W
    Melissa
    Ruth Millikan (born 1933)O
    Iris Murdoch (1919–1999)O W
    Ioanna Kucuradi (born 1936)
    Nancey Murphy (born 1951)
    Judith Sargent Murray (1751–1820)D2
    Nel Noddings
    Martha Nussbaum (born 1947)C O
    Onora O'Neill (born 1941)O W
    Ayn Rand (January 20, 1905 – March 6, 1982)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Janet Radcliffe Richards (born 1944)O
    Rosemary Radford Ruether (born 1936)
    Renata Salecl (born 1962)
    Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678)D2 R
    Lady Mary Shepherd (1777–1847)A C
    Sor Juana (1648–1695)D2
    Anne Louise Germaine de Staël (1766–1817)R
    L. Susan Stebbing (1885–1943)W
    Edith Stein (1891–1942)D1
    Gabrielle Suchon (1631–1703)R
    Lisa H. Schwartzman
    Harriet Taylor Mill (1807–1858)C D1 R
    Teresa of Avila (1515–1582)C
    Themistoclea (fl. 600 BCE. Teacher of Pythagoras
    Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929)C O W
    Baroness Mary Warnock (born 1924)O
    Simone Weil (1909–1943)C D1 O R
    Victoria Lady Welby (1837–1912)W
    Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797)C D1 G O R W
    Frances Wright (1795–1852)D2
    Dorothy Maud Wrinch (1894–1976)
    Alenka Zupančič (born 1966)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Well I have say kudos for making an entire thread out of semantics, lol.
    Hi! So you are returning to the Semantic Department to applaud my humble mumblings?
    Werent you the promising student intentionally identifying Semantics with Sophistry?

    Whats your view on Philosophy then?

    I see it as an area of problems. And to each problem there is an "...ism"
    identifying ppl trying to understand and solve the problem.

    The name "Sarte" has been mentioned...he has a companion in arms called "Camus" or someting such...together they constitute what Im aware of as French Existentialism. There are Existential Philosophers everywhere because its a subject where no progress has been made since its beginning in Ancient Fogs. So its easy to produce some mysterious unintelligeble remarks and join the choir of respected and adorned Philosophers.
    Im a bit harsh here: they all go to the Trash Can if I have any say about it... except for

    the Super Nova of Existentialism: ALBERT EINSTEIN!

    So theres the number one Philosopher on my list. I decide for reasons of Justice and Enlightment that each other name on my list shall belong to a female...so...ahem:

    Who is the Champion among Female Philosophers?

    I honestly have no idea...any suggestions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I think you have agreed with my opponents claiming that Philosophy is a Useless Occupation?
    Where did I say that? I've said it doesn't interest me.

    I'm equally uninterested in travel to Mach Pichu, vast swathes of art, most novels, antique mechanical toys, coin collecting, cooking curry, wood carving, most magazines, car races, cheap jewellery, .....

    I could give you a list of all the things that don't interest me, I suppose. But it might be a bit long.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think you have agreed with my opponents claiming that Philosophy is a Useless Occupation?
    Where did I say that? I've said it doesn't interest me.

    I'm equally uninterested in travel to Mach Pichu, vast swathes of art, most novels, antique mechanical toys, coin collecting, cooking curry, wood carving, most magazines, car races, cheap jewellery, .....

    I could give you a list of all the things that don't interest me, I suppose. But it might be a bit long.
    No need to, all I want to know is if the question whether female contribution to knowledge is negligible or not... would be found within the list. But sure! ...I might be asking the wrong female.

    But theres no hurry. Im enquiring into philosophy only because of the lack of relevant questions on Semantics. Philosophy is not totally irrelevant to Semantics you see
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    all I want to know is if the question whether female contribution to knowledge is negligible or not
    No-one should be telling anyone that. That's something people should work out for themselves.

    Of course if it's an unfamiliar topic, someone might ask who are the best known women marine biologists/ vulcanologists/ chemists / whatever the topic is, or someone wants to be sure they've not omitted anyone important from some kind of list.

    Within the list? I've probably only read 20 or so of those writers at all, and barely more than a dozen have I read whole book/s.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    all I want to know is if the question whether female contribution to knowledge is negligible or not
    No-one should be telling anyone that. That's something people should work out for themselves.

    Of course if it's an unfamiliar topic, someone might ask who are the best known women marine biologists/ vulcanologists/ chemists / whatever the topic is, or someone wants to be sure they've not omitted anyone important from some kind of list.

    Within the list? I've probably only read 20 or so of those writers at all, and barely more than a dozen have I read whole book/s.
    I find it strange that I myself never before asked who the most merited female philosopher is!
    I find it even stranger...unbelievable really... if nobody else never asked the question or tried to answer it.

    A daughter of mine suggests Judith Butler or Simone De Beauvoir... But my wife finds nothing strange here:
    "Womens brains functions somehow better than males", she suggests, "and are stronger connected by the subconscious so maybe we dont always think anyone deserves to be placed before the others!
    Making lists is a male..-ish idea.
    Heres a list of what to buy for me when you go out for a smoke, dear little male of mine..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 31st, 2011, 02:42 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 8th, 2011, 02:57 AM
  3. It's Just Semantics
    By John Galt in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 10th, 2010, 01:14 AM
  4. Setian Semantics
    By neatchi in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 19th, 2007, 02:14 AM
  5. This Week in Science - Online Weekly Science Radio Show
    By Marshall Clark in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •