<p>"Untitled, your statements on this forum are unpalatable and rubbish. You seem to be very emotional. I guess you probably need to spend more time doing pedantic endeavors in order to get it into Top-Flight colleges. </p>
<p>Please don't say that you're Asian; because Asians are more self confident than you. They do not spend their time bashing other races. Their philosophy is to help others. You see this all around the world."</p>
<p>Who is "untitled"? Does such person exist on College Confidential Forum?</p>
<p>Oh, BTW, an Asian, by the nickname "Untilted" has already got in a top college. however, he still opposes Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Also, you seem to be new to CC, the truth is: Most Asians on this board hate Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>My posts are not rubbish. Point out what you don't agree with, please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Untitled, your statements on this forum are unpalatable and rubbish. You seem to be very emotional. I guess you probably need to spend more time doing pedantic endeavors in order to get it into Top-Flight colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never knew arguments had to taste good. You need to spend more time using words correctly rather than deriding others with your apparent misuse. It only makes you look worse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually unpalatable is correct in that sentence. Ouch, now you just look like a moron.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was not making specific reference to unpalatable, there were other words which were used incorrectly (the most glaring being 'philosophy'). However, in regard to 'unpalatable', the context in which it was used was unconventional. Perhaps it was not patently incorrect, but it was a borderline case.</p>
<p>But what renders you more of a fool is the following stipulation:</p>
<p>
[quote] apparent misuse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This suggests that the word is prima facie inapplicable. I am also not sure about the use of 'pedantic' in that context, but the offense is forgivable.</p>
<p>Edit: In accord with convention, I have never seen 'palatable' - or its opposite - used in any sort of argument that assesses or postulates a logical claim. The terms I have encountered so far, including its negative predicate pair, that suggest the reasonableness of a statement or syllogism are:
Tenable
Reasonable
Tractable
Fallacious
Necessarily follows (the term, being x, would be in the form ...x...)
Logical
Coherent
Cogent (in the case of induction)
Sound (both in the case of deduction and induction)
Valid</p>
<p>Need I go on? Never have I once encountered 'palatable' in a formal text of any sort. Conventionality is on my side; you can argue in favor of the extra-ordinary, but let us return to the ordinary;)</p>
<p>Edit 2: And before you return, listing other terms which you will claim are somehow not in my repertoire of words used for logical assessment and conjecture, let me add the further disclaimer that the above list is not exhaustive. Of course, only an individual of your stature would argue on that level, thus necessitating this additional edit. If need be, I can countenance my statements.</p>
<p>This site contains a modest collection of the most important works of our history. Most are of logical stature, propounding, elaborating, establishing, and assessing claims in standard truth-function schema. A mere google search on that site for the term 'palatable' yields nothing.</p>
<p>Of course, the site does excise much of the "extra" "meaningless" "verbiage" of these famous texts, but this only works to your detriment, I am afraid. If only superfluous terms and statements were removed, and if palatable were actually among those terms or statements, then, per force, it is meaningless in that context.</p>
<p>Ahhhh, the irony. But return to affirmative action! It is far more pleasing than the amateurs who use recondite rhetoric to please their own supercilious selves. I can think of nothing more humorous.</p>
<p>There is a syntactical ambiguity in your statement:</p>
<p><a href="negation%20of%20p%20or%20r">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could either mean ~(p v r) or (~p v r)</p>
<p>But since you are already so adept at elementary logic, you would have known that you commit a false dichotomy. Truth functional schema are not valid or contradictory, they are valid, consistent or inconsistent.</p>
<p>Your first statement can be reduced to:
~(pvq)
Which is renders the entire schema consistent.</p>
<p>The second statement is true whenever 'q' is true, and is false whenever 'p' and 'q' are false. Thus, it is also consistent.</p>
<p>Here is a nice exercise:
((~EFG~H -> EF~G)(~EF~G v ~EF~H)) -> (~EFH~G -> EF~HG)
Convert that to disjunctional (or alternational) normal schema/format. 'E' is the existential quantifier.</p>
<p>It's nice to know you define 'conventionality' as the (limited) realm of your own experience. And that you're so unsure of your own argument that you rely on attacking someone's word choice with what was without a doubt the most pretentious, arrogant post I have ever seen.</p>
<br>
[QUOTE=""]
<blockquote>
<p>But return to affirmative action! It is far more pleasing than the amateurs who use recondite rhetoric to please their own supercilious selves. I can think of nothing more humorous.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I can't agree more. Your posts make me giggle like a little girl.</p>
<p>Seriously, hubris is a very unattractive quality in a person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's nice to know you define 'conventionality' as the (limited) realm of your own experience. And that you're so unsure of your own argument that you rely on attacking someone's word choice with what was without a doubt the most pretentious, arrogant post I have ever seen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is why I substantiated my claim in the next post;) But, by all means, provide the evidence and I will admit defeat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't agree more. Your posts make me giggle like a little girl.</p>
<p>Seriously, hubris is a very unattractive quality in a person.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And your arguments, along with rollo's word usage, are akin to a freshman pulling at a panty-girdle. Your assumptions regarding my attitude are presumptuous, as there is no ground for that opinion. Last I checked, the internet was not the best mechanism for propagating attitude-types.</p>
<p>Search google for the term 'palatable' and observe the most common context of its use. Furthermore, you have yet to rebut my observation regarding his misuse of 'philosophy', which my initial post suggested since I used plural:</p>
<p>
[quote]
you need to spend more time using word*s* correctly rather than deriding others with your apparent misuse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Continue be a little girl, as it only epitomizes the posts you render.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I ask untilted. Are you untilted??? come are you suffering from a braincramp or something.--- IQ ds
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From someone who was accepted for a Ph.D. program in Yale, I would have expected better grammar and proficiency in logic, neither of which is evident thus far.</p>
<p>Put your money where your mouth is. We can meet in DC at the Capitol Brewery on capitol hill. I'll pay your traveling expenses;however, you will have to pay up when you lose. </p>
<p>Are you untilted?? You're a farcical character.</p>