UCSC admissions

Transfer Students
101

<p>You look like a jack ass. Im sorry but you are just incorrect. incredulous can be used as a noun, a verb, or an adjective. As an adjective, it can mean both skeptical, or producing skepticism or lacking warrant as well. An incredulous notion, is a dubious or suspicious idea. Although closer to skeptical, incredulous if used correctly is similar to the word incredible (which i should have used for the sake your simpleton mind). You can see below what I am talking about:</p>

<p>\In<em>cred"u</em>lous\ (?; 135), a. [L. incredulus. See
{In-} not, and {Credulous}.]
1. Not credulous; indisposed to admit or accept that which is
related as true, skeptical; unbelieving. --Bacon.</p>

<pre><code> A fantastical incredulous fool. --Bp. Wilkins.
</code></pre>

<ol>
<li><p>Indicating, or caused by, disbelief or incredulity. ``An
incredulous smile.'' --Longfellow.</p></li>
<li><p>Incredible; not easy to be believed. [R.] --Shak.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Although I doubt this is what you were getting at, many people mistakenly regard incredulous as entirely separate from incredible. While this was true before the 20th century in the classical english language, it is not true now, and incredulous is correctly used as a similar but slightly different adjective variant of incredible... for example...</p>

<p>Main Entry: in·cred·u·lous
Pronunciation: (")in-'kre-j&-l&s, -dy&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin incredulus, from in- + credulus credulous
1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : SKEPTICAL
2 : INCREDIBLE
3 : expressing incredulity
- in·cred·u·lous·ly adverb
usage Sense 2 was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent--among others Shakespeare used it--many people think it is a result of confusion with incredible, which is still the usual word in this sense.</p>

<p>There are many words, especially those coined by shakespeare, that were not part of the old english that are now considered standard english. Ill trust its literary precedent as well as the support of our favorite 15th century bard over your opinion anyday..</p>

<p>Anyway, any dumb ass can look up a word on dictionary.com, you clearly have a lack of understanding if you must rely on a half baked definition on a pedestrian website. Trust me, you look dumb trying to point out the mistakes of others while making one yourself. Why would you want to attack someones writing anyways? how immature of you...that has nothing to do with what I was talking about anyways. I was refering to a number of people who sent me anonymous nasty pm's from bogus accounts. I never said "heylook at my grammar!!!" Do you just sit there all day and wait for people to say something and then post some definition you found on a website...to prove what? Go get a job as an english professor or something. many of us want to talk about college without our posts being graded. LOL you are hilarious...</p>

<p>scandalous? I am unable to see the "scandal" here exept in the continued destruction of what should otherwise be a supportive and informative thread. "Incredulous" functions perfectly in the sentence. Good day.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
There are many words, especially those coined by shakespeare, that were not part of the old english that are now considered standard english. Ill trust its literary precedent as well as the support of our favorite 15th century bard over your opinion anyday..

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never knew dictionaries were prone to publishing opinions; if that is the case, I will promptly sue the parent-companies for inculcating our youth in corrupt English.</p>

<p>Not once in my post did I revert to a single curse word, yet, it appears as if that is all you can use in your assault; were such words also established by "good literary precedent?"</p>

<p>
[quote]
how immature of you...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please do not even attempt to feign maturity when your own post is drenched in curse words; my correction was not meant to be derisive, just helpful. The definition I provided above is from the preceding source, and I would think that it is a highly regarded source for definitions in the context of "standard English."</p>

103

<p>There appears to be a conflict of definitions; Merriam-Webster's is reporting the definition you posted, but every other source I check does not contain the word "incredible." I think the conventional definition, as in what is currently being used, is in the source I provided, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.</p>

<p>Edit: My apologies:)</p>

104

<p>Posting a correction on an informal post regarding college issues is a very immature thing to do. Though the benefit of the doubt is gladly accepted. </p>

<p>Corrupting our youth? hardly but nice try. You were wrong. No use in trying to cast a shadow of doubt on the dictionary publishers. If you really want to help, you can spare me your condescending grammar advice and let it be. </p>

<p>Besides, there is no conflict in definition. There is an absence of clarity and information in the definition from dictionary.com, and a full explanation in the others. There is no conflict, rather one has less information than the other. LOL!! dictionary.com is hardly a highly regarded source but whatever you prefer. Maybe, just maybe what happened is that you were wrong. Is that so implausible? There are multiple ways of using the word. End of story. In the future, I promise I will only post after meticulously filtering every sentence through dictionary.com. Though I do apologize for "cursing" (lol havent heard that in ages) in my post, i suppose i did over react. Im simply tired of trying to keep this post on topic. I wish I were a moderator....Lets just end this now..who cares whos right!?!? ok!! its over yay!!!!</p>

<p>edit: please disregard all previous aggresion. I posted after your second edit...I apologize too lets just stop all this bickering :)</p>

105

<p>What's going on here? I thought this is not a MLA forum but a college forum, I thought my professor did not ask me to use 1800's language here on this forum, and I thought this topic was originally about UCSC?</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
saying the word ass hole is certainly less immature than acting like one. Posting a correction on an informal post regarding college issues is a very immature thing to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, I forgot that you are the king of (im?)maturity.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you really want to help, you can spare me your condescending grammar advice and let it be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It was actually not grammatical advice, but you are the mature one, so I leave the categorical assignment to you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, there is no conflict in definition. There is an absence of clarity and information in the definition from dictionary.com, and a full explanation in the others. There is no conflict, rather one has less information than the other. LOL!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the others? Would you like to provide multiple sources? I could only find one. Moreover, whether or not there is a lacunae in the definition provided by some sources, since the source itself chooses not to extend their analysis, referring to it as a conflicting definition would be an adequate assessment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
LOL!! dictionary.com is hardly a highly regarded source but whatever you prefer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you not supposed to be mature and cerebral? I mean, if you look just below the definition provided by dictionary.com, it says this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But far be it for me to question a mature man's reading capabilities;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Lets just end this now..

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
who cares whos right!?!?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously you do, or you would not have responded.</p>

107

<p>thank you blackdream that is all i wanted...to talk about ucsc admissions... not defend my english or the reputation of ssanta cruz. IM BEGGING YOU GUYS....:)...lets keep it on track....alright cool...so about santa cruz</p>

108

<p>I never been to UCSC, but there is this thing i can tell you</p>

<p>It's probably pretty far from the beach.</p>

109

<p>look man lets end this bickering right now...the definitions at dictionary.com are not complete or thorough (obviously) even though they are taken from a larger dictionary. So i can see where you made your mistake. you are obviously a smart guy. but I dont appreciate your condescending stab at my word choice. Especially when you were just simply wrong. I find it immature to do something like that. you obviously do not, thats fine we disagree. But regardless of your categorization of immature behavior, incredulous is fine where it is... dont worry about it...</p>

<p>Also, If you look at my edit, I apologized for my belligerence as I was only responding to your first post. maybe you didnt see it maybe you didnt care. Regardless, lets just let it go, incredulous is perfectly used and i overreacted because im getting tired of keeping this thread on topic. ok cool... </p>

<p>anyways, yeah I was suprised at how far it is from the beach despite the great views.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
the definitions at dictionary.com are not complete or thourough

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is your evidence of this?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Especially when you were just simply wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No I was not.</p>

<p>Discussion ended. If you wish to argue why my correction was not wrong, then send me a private message.</p>

111

<p>Thank you for your sign of good faith.</p>

<p>I should go to UCSC sometimes (I don't think I will ever go there, considering I have not applied it)</p>

112

<p>no thanks I would never engage in an argument* with someone who is incapable of admitting error. You posted an incomplete definition and smugly suggested alternative word choices. . In doing such, you incorrectly made the assertion that incredulous was used improperly. That makes you incorrect sir. You yourself saw it with your own eyes. Incredulous can be used as an adjective variant for incredible. This unfortunately makes you what is called "wrong." I admit I executed my post in a belligerent manner, but you seem to have a serious problem accepting the fact that you were !!!!wrong!!!!!!! Anyways, I am finished with this thread post as you like. if anyone has ANY ANY information regarding UC Santa Cruz (especially information on Kresge and Philosophy)please send me a private message. I would appreciate it greatly...</p>

<p>P.S: (a difference in terms of absence of information in claims does not necessarily entail conflict, there is an actual fallacy in logic devoted to this mistake. If you could have pointed out the conflicting statements, which are in fact in there, only then would you be correct in your assesment)</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
You posted an incomplete definition

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It was not incomplete, you have yet to prove so. Thus far, the definition I have found is merely conflicting; Princeton's WordNet concurs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you incorrectly made the assertion that incredulous was used improperly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I made the assertion that your use of incredulous was incorrect in the conventional understanding of the word; is someone suffering from the semantic sting?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You yourself saw it with your own eyes. Incredulous can be used as an adjective variant for incredible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I only regard such usage as archaic; The American Heritage Dictionary provides more than enough warrancy for its conventional usage. Using your reasoning, I could refer to you as "gay," but justify such a characterization by using the archaic definition of "happy." Times have changed, deal with it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
a difference in terms of absence of information in claims does not necessarily entail conflict, there is an actual fallacy in logic devoted to this mistake

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When the source claims it to be an authoritative source, they thus sieze any right to claim that their definition is incomplete, and thus finalize it as the definitive definition, it is quite simple, really. Moreover, which fallacy is actually devoted to it? I can not recall a single of the 46 fallacies I have memorized which even remotely resembles the bizarre argument you are constructing.</p>

<p>In regard to the specific logic you are referring to, I am still correct that they are conflicting. If a scientist claims that P as properties X,Y,Z and only X,Y,Z, and another claims that P only possesses properties X,Y, the conclusions necessarily conflict. Your argument rests on the disputable premise that the definition provided by dictionary.com is incomplete, but that has only been verified by yielding to a single alternative source. You argue that this alternative source must be correct, but when asked why your - single - source should trump mine, you, again, yield to the correctness of the source, and that begs the question, which is a fallacy.</p>

<p>At any rate, need I remind you of the ad hominem fallacy, which you are so fond of committing?</p>

<p>
[quote]
no thanks I would never engage in an argument* with someone who is incapable of admitting error.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps, but I think the larger issue here is that you are merely trumping discourse.</p>

114

<p>I think the US English organization just admit Arnold Schwarnaggez as their member, so much for your efforts to uphold the English language.</p>

115

<p>Kid can be complacent in the false security that he is right, that is not my problem; the inconsistencies in his logic have been sufficiently explicated in my above post, whether or not you hold the English language in high esteem.</p>

<p>Edit: To use an expression often invoked by my fellow philosophers: "I totally nailed him on the circular reasoning.";)</p>

116

<p>If a language that is only used by selected a few, it will die.</p>

<p>English is used by a lot of countries because it's easy to learn and easy to morph into whatever form they need.</p>

<p>There is NO standard English. </p>

<p>nspeds, I hope you realize that, by forcing people to adapt to a mechanical, strict guideline of language usage, you are indirectly killing vitality of the very language that you are hoping to protect.</p>

117

<p>Blackdream,</p>

<p>You sent me a private message mentioning that you had no time for such discussion, yet you are perpetuating it here, make up your mind.</p>

<p>If there were no standard of English, then how could there possibly be any course that purports to teach individuals how to write? If you are going to argue that such grammatical standards are trivial, then I dare you to publish a piece laced with them, you will not get far.</p>

<p>By the way, logic is not a strict regulatory mechanism for language, it is merely a system of argumentation.</p>

<p>I will disregard this argument:

[quote]
I hope you realize that, by forcing people to adapt to a mechanical, strict guideline of language usage, you are indirectly killing vitality of the very language that you are hoping to protect.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For it seems nearly as uncorroborated as Kid's absurd propositions.</p>

118

<p>Wow, now you have resorted your method of discussion by calling me "kid". However, reading your posts do have its great entertainment value. </p>

<p>well of course, you are free to call everything that your brain cannot comprehend "kid's absurd propositions." Inability to admit mistakes or the simple "I don't know" is a really big intellectual quality colleges look for I suppose.</p>

<p>Last hint, you DO NOT want to argue with everyone on this forum about how English should be used. No matter how much you want others to believe, you are NOT an authority on English usage. </p>

<p>You call me a kid, but what about you? To my understanding, you are a highschool graduate who probably can't find a job teaching elementary school English courses (they require a college degree I think). More over, professionals with great medical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or whatever knowledge don't try to pick fight on internet like you do. I sincerely suggest you stop "helping" others with their English, we sure appreciate it, but we DON'T need it.</p>

<p>all told: I guess this world is inhabited by all sort of people. It's glad to know somewhere on this planet there is a guy who's crazy about English, disgusted by relationship, and argue on internet.</p>

119

<p>ok, i know I said I was gone last time, but THIS IS MY FINAL POST HERE:
You:
Your argument rests on the disputable premise that the definition provided by dictionary.com is incomplete, but that has only been verified by yielding to a single alternative source. You argue that this alternative source must be correct, but when asked why your - single - source should trump mine, you, again, yield to the correctness of the source, and that begs the question, which is a fallacy.</p>

<p>actually, your argument that they are conflicting rests on the assumption that the definition provided by dictionary.com is necessarily absolute and exclusive to other congruent definitions with more information. No dictionary in the history of mankind has purported to do such. A conflict happens when there is a difference in the alleged meaning not in the presence of additional information. Also from what i have found, the definitions on that website tend to be skimmed down and brief in general. The other definition simply has more information than the dict.com definition has. Now, if you can show me where it says in writing that the definitions provided on dictionary.com are absolute and exclusive, you would still be incorrect along with your beloved website. Or it must indicate a huge conspiracy from M-Webster to corrupt our language! oooh! I doubt it, there are actually two websites I believe. One is enough for me. If definitions were conflicting based on a difference in the amount of information given, every definition would be in conflict. its hardly that political my friend.;). One definition has less, one has more. That extra information, demonstrates your incorrect implication. End of that story.</p>

<p>You:</p>

<p>(Did you mean warrant or warranty? its annoying isn't it ? its actually warrant but hey you are the boss on this stuff right LOL) </p>

<p>I only regard such usage as archaic; The American Heritage Dictionary provides more than enough <strong>warrancy</strong> for its conventional usage. Using your reasoning, I could refer to you as "gay," but justify such a characterization by using the archaic definition of "happy." Times have changed, deal with it.</p>

<p>AHAHAHA.....Actually, you have it completely reversed. Incredulous was originally not synonymous with incredible in archaic english. It wasn't until after the 20th century that it gained this attribute. That is why on some dictionaries it doesn't provide incredible as as its adjective variant. Check a <em>recent</em> real big fat actual dictionary. its in there most of the time. It is only today that incredulous is an adjective variant of incredible. For example you rarely hear someone say "that argument was incredible!" with the intention of calling it dubious. Thus, incredulous now operates in this function. So it appears that you my friend must accept that times have changed. Deal with it. It is as if I used "gay" in reference to a homosexual, and you unknowingly posted a definition of "gay" as happy without the additional information of its contemporary usage. Gay happens to mean both of these things, so a definition with this additional information would not necessarily conflict with its archaic definition. It is very simple.</p>

<p>Ad Hominem? LOL..you cant be serious? How lame... you are incapable of extracting arguments out of informal bickering. Ok fine, I accept that I made some insults to you ( which i honestly do apologize for), but unfortunately for your case, these had nothing to do with the matter at hand....</p>

<p>You made an incorrect implication that I used incredulous incorrectly...</p>

<p>...Not to mention your unending "stacking the deck" fallacy, in which you continued to try and support your position long after my point has been clearly been proven. Ad hominem? Give me a break. If I had known you wanted a formal logical debate, I would have nailed the coffin shut on you a long time ago. Ok then, here it comes. Its over now. I will make it very very clear for your verbose yet shallow mind (excuse the ad hominem LOL)...</p>

<p>You implied that I used incredulous incorrectly</p>

<p>I did not in fact use incredulous incorrectly</p>

<hr>

<p>Your implication that I used incredulous incorrectly, was wrong</p>

<p>This argument is both sound and valid, as anyone can look at your previous posts and see. Checkmate! Im sorry pal, you have a stronger vocabulary than me, but you are wrong. You cannot defy this. <em>Unless</em> you want to go at it with M-Webster in regards to the second premise and get back to me after the trial (in hindsight, you did actually mentioned a lawsuit LOL), then you must accept the fact that you were wrong. Granted your error was only in implication, it was incorrect nonetheless. Let it go. You were wrong. And I am done with your wordy and muddled attempts to change that fact. i retire from this thread and website happy that I have tried my best to correct unwarranted condescension. Goodbye college confidential!!!</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
Actually, your argument that they are conflicting rests on the assumption that the definition provided by dictionary.com is necessarily absolute and exclusive to other congruent definitions with more information.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hate to break it to you, but other dictionary's, including the physical version of the American Heritage Dictionary, have indeed confirmed my findings:).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also from what i have found, the definitions on that website tend to be skimmed down and brief in general.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The other definition simply has more information than the dict.com definition has.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One extra word: Incredible.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, if you can show me where it says in writing that the definitions provided on dictionary.com are absolute and exclusive, you would still be incorrect along with your beloved website.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But I have other websites also providing the exact same definition, as well as other dictionaries! Tsk tsk, are you still begging the question?</p>

<p>
[quote]
One is enough for me. If definitions were conflicting based on a difference in the amount of information given, every definition would be in conflict. its hardly that political my friend.. One definition has less, one has more.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you are, you are begging the question!</p>

<p><a href="Did%20you%20mean%20warrant%20or%20warranty?%20its%20annoying%20isn't%20it%20?%20its%20actually%20warrant%20but%20hey%20you%20are%20the%20boss%20on%20this%20stuff%20right%20LOL">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I meant "warrant."</p>

<p>
[quote]
AHAHAHA.....Actually, you have it completely reversed. Incredulous was originally not synonymous with incredible in archaic english.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was speaking of a conventional framework, somehow that qualification eluded you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It wasn't until after the 20th century that it gained this attribute.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is a very ambiguous term; if I recall correctly, the "happy" denotation of "gay" actually continued up until the early 1980s, which is still the 20th century.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Check a <em>recent</em> real big fat actual dictionary. its in there most of the time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I checked, and you are, indeed, wrong; I even looked in Black's Law Dictionary, but alas, they did not have the word.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Gay happens to mean both of these things, so a definition with this additional information would not necessarily conflict with its archaic definition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps, but that does not mean you can still use it in that manner.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ad Hominem? LOL..you cant be serious? How lame... you are incapable of extracting arguments out of informal bickering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok fine, I accept that I made some insults to you ( which i honestly do apologize for),
[quote]
</p>

<p><em>Cough</em>, ad hominem attack <em>cough</em></p>

<p>
[quote]
but unfortunately for your case, these had nothing to do with the matter at hand....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is the nature of the ad hominem attack, as well!</p>

<p>
[quote]
You made an incorrect implication that I used incredulous incorrectly...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I did not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ad hominem? Give me a break.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is still an attack.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If I had known you wanted a formal logical debate I would have nailed the coffin shut on you a long time ago.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ahhh yes, that explains your flagrant use of circular logic;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
You implied that I used incredulous incorrectly</p>

<p>I did not in fact use incredulous incorrectly</p>

<hr>

<p>Your implication that I used incredulous incorrectly, was wrong

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are missing a qualification...</p>

<p>
[quote]
This argument is both sound and valid, as anyone can look at your previous posts and see.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Checkmate!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So now your logic is as bad as your chess?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You cannot defy this. <em>Unless</em> you want to go at it with M-Webster in regards to the second premise and get back to me after the trial (in hindsight, you did actually mentioned a lawsuit LOL), then you must accept the fact that you were wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are still begging the question if you cannot provide multiple sources.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I am done with your wordy and muddled attempts to change that fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, my arguments were logical; you seem to possess the innate limitation of not being able to qualify premises. Since you will not reply, I will just assume for both of us that you have probably had a 5 minute lesson in logic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Goodbye college confidential!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bye!</p>