Re: Plausibility Check


Harlan Messinger wrote:

You chose to mine because of your prediction. The predicting and the
mining were two different things.

Someone who roams an entire beach every weekend with a metal detector,
not focusing on particular spot because he has no preconception as to
what part of the beach might contain a find and not necessarily
expecting to find anything valuable at all, is mining without predicting.

Last year I went for Magdalenian words on a rather
intuitive basis, but soon I discovered that inverse forms
are related, and that further permutations yield words
around the same meme. This year I discovered that
I can't only use 3 or sometimes 4 permutations, but
often all 6 permutations of a three-letter word. And then
I had the intuition that S-words may be comparative forms
of D-words, just from one case, LAD for hill, slope, LAS
for cliff, mountain. I checked my intuition with AD for
toward, AS for ? upward ! bingo. So I boldly stated a
new law of Magdalenian, on the basis of just two cases:
S-words are comparative forms of D-words. And it turned
out to be a powerful law, allowing me to mine clusters
of a dozen words around the same meme, 6 D-words
plus 6 S-words.

What makes you think sound comes only from vocal cords? Can you hear a
teakettle whistling or pots banging? No vocal cords involved.

My throat ain't a teakettle. And I fear I won't be allowed
to say The sky is blue, for it may be blue just now at
a certain place, overcast somewhere else, and the sky
on Mars is red. You guys are great at distorting the
context of every line I write.

Franz Gnaedinger

As for Nathan Sanders: I wont spend my whole weekend
dancing the fandango with him. He may quote my answer
from a previous message, and then point out what is
wrong with it. Snipping my lines and spouting invectives
won't do.

.

Quantcast