Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (124858)	7/12/2005 5:15:51 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793914

Cats is not pixels. Cats is cats. (eom)

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (124858)	7/12/2005 6:26:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

LOL. I'll bet you tell great shaggy-dog stories. You're very adept at stringing together unrelated bits under a feigned presumption of eventual coherence. Either that or you don't know what a red herring (aka ignoratio elenchi) fallacy is in logic. Any more than you know what a zero-article (used with nouns when referencing a class) is in grammar. Any more than you know what a hasty generalization is logic. (That's the one about some/all cats being orange.) Any more than you know what projection is in psychology. Such an attitude may well explain why I read so many posts with really dumb logic. I would never have made an issue of your orange cats had you not given CB two terse sentences. The first was the risible illogic that "cats are orange" can mean "some cats are orange." The second was, having let it all hang out like that, you had the audacity to challenge HER logic. Really, you should at least have a few paragraphs of buffer between your illogic and your accusations of others' illogic so the absurdity wouldn't be so conspicuous. Oh, yeah, projection is when you attribute your faults to the other guy. Actually, your post was three, not two sentences. Your first point should have been one sentence but you separated it into two making your independent clause one sentence and your dependent clause another. But then, you apparently don't know what independent and dependent clauses are in grammar or how to punctuate them, either. And I would not call the numeric representation of luminance for the red green and blue chrominance of the color orange as computer codes. Computer codes are numbers and the computer has no concept of color. Six hexadecimal representation is simply a way to define the color orange to a shade of 1 in 2 to the 24th shades. You wouldn't, huh? Funny, I didn't call it that. You know, that post was to moenmac, who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a computer jock. What better than "computer color codes" to describe in plain english the hex representation of RGB colors for use in HTML? While you're showing off your "knowledge" of such things, why not explain to the thread the difference between RGB and CMY colors and the different usages of decimal and hexidecimal RGB codes. (As you're doing that, bear in mind that I was adding and subtracting hex before calculators were small enough for folks to carry around in their pockets.) And, last but not least, you apparently don't know the difference between ignorance and illogic.