Re: Arizona is the Dumbist state in the US

From: Andrew B. Park (novakyu_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: 26 Jul 2004 12:40:29 -0700

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Andrew B. Park" <novakyu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce0nbp$jdt@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > | > I would assert that P->Q is true, but its converse is not.
> > (snip)
> > > If you use that argument to debunk the sentence
> > > "Government data shows that Arizona
> > > is the Dumbest state in the USA,"
> > > then there is something severely wrong with your logic.
> > >
> > > You still have a chance to say "Oh... oops, I made a silly
> > > little mistake, sorry".
> > > Trust me, the longer you wait, the harder it gets.
> > > Find out on
> > >
> >
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
> > > But... wait... you *are* Androcles in disguise, aren't you?
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > There you go again--assuming things that I didn't even say (or even
> > imply, for that matter!).
> >
> > I clearly did not say "Government data shows that Arizona is not
the
> > dumbest state in the USA," either.
>
> I never claimed that you said this.
> Park (or is it Parker?), you do it again. The fact that you say this
> shows -again- that your logic sucks.
> Stop embarrassing yourself. Before you reach a point of no return,
> take a step back and sleep over it...
>
> Dirk Vdm

Then what are you claiming?

>>From your statement, I gather this meaning:
"If you use the fact that, while P->Q may be true, Q->P is not
necessarily true in order to show that the statement 'Government data
shows that Arizona is the dumbest state in the USA' is false, by which
I mean that you are trying to show that the statement 'Government data
does not show (or, shows nothing that necessiates the conclusion) that
Arizona is the dumbest state in the USA, while not showing proof to the
contrary (that is, a proof that Arizona is _not_ the dumbest state)' is
true, then the logic you employ is false." (Note that the second part,
"while not showing....," is quite redundant--I just wanted the
statement to be unambiguous.)

You have yet to prove that--in fact, in my reply to your first reply to
my first post, I think I have proven that my logic is quite infallible
in proving that statement which I set out to prove.

If, I have gathered your well-meaning meaning wrong, then please do
correct me, specifically--and write your own specific, unequivocal
statement. If not, don't beg for surrender from a victor.

BTW, I apologize that my reply has gotten a bit sluggish of late.
Unlike you, Punk, I have class and work that requires me to be away
from computer at least for 8 hours a day, and homework--which, my
classmates say, takes _them_ at least 2 hours (at least that's the
lowest figure I heard so far) a piece (and we have two a day)--that
need to be done.

PS. Oh, and yes--if you wish to prove my logic wrong, then please quote
the necessary parts and refute them. BTW, do remember that I have
already written a refutation of your refutation of my first post--well,
so if you are going to refute a point at all, you will have to refute
both of them, if it is something that has been mentioned in both posts.
If not, back off, Jirk.