UCSC admissions

[nspeds]

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I was referring to "kidacarus"; but referring to him as "kid" serves multiple purposes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I admit it when I think I am wrong; in fact, was it not earlier that I gave him the benefit of the doubt? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Last hint, you DO NOT want to argue with everyone on this forum about how English should be used.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was only arguing with kidacarus.</p>

<p>
[quote]
No matter how much you want others to believe, you are NOT an authority on English usage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did I say I was?</p>

<p>
[quote]
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).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am a philosophy major;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) Fallacy of the Hasty Generalization
2) Stop posting in this forum, for we do not need your "advice."</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's glad to know somewhere on this planet there is a guy who's crazy about English

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not crazy about it, just upset at others for thinking they know something; I have heard professionals use words such as "peruse" incorrectly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
disgusted by relationship, and argue on internet.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then I should be disgusted at myself, right? Since I am in one. I was only disgusted at the notion of promiscuity.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>By the way, I think we should have halted the argument much longer ago, we are not really accomplishing anything; eventually this will descend into some petty dispute, which it probably already is, so it is pointless to perpetuate it.</p>

[Blackdream]

<p>I don't force my advice on people by telling them how wrong they are then proceed to call them names.</p>

<p>Philosphy major? Ok, but technically, since you have not graduated from college, you are STILL high school graduate.</p>

<p>Wow, what a wonderful thread that has been derailed...</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
Ok, but technically, since you have not graduated from college, you are STILL high school graduate

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you not in the same position? How are you insulting me?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't force my advice on people by telling them how wrong they are then proceed to call them names.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What name did I call you?</p>

[kidicarus]

<p>I have to admit it, Im addicted to this hogwash. </p>

<p>What I find hilarious is that you continue to beat a dead horse when you are the only one who used a word incorrectly. You are the one who needed correction my sad friend. "Warrancy" LOL.. it isnt even a word. You meant warrant, but used a bogus word. </p>

<p>I, on the other hand, used incredulous correctly according to M-Websters definition. You my friend have yet to prove that this definition is incorrect. The definition provided by other dictionaries does not indicate that my usage was incorrect, rather it simply does not provide sufficient information to disprove my alternative usage. You have ignored that fact that nowhere does it say that the definition excludes and must therefore conflict with all other definitions which contain additional information. YOU ARE WRONG. </p>

<p>You cannot defy this:</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>You must bite the bullet and either accept defeat or deny that M-Websyers definition is correct. If you do the latter, you will make yourself look even more foolish than you already do.</p>

<p>How do you like these apples?:
I claimed that you used an incorrect word, "warrancy", in place of the correct word warrant.</p>

<p>You did in fact use an incorrect word, "warrancy", in place of the correct word warrant.</p>

<hr>

<p>My claim that you used an incorrect word in place of warrant was correct.</p>

<p>LOL.... you are the only one needing correction pal. I used incredulous correctly and I can prove it with the definition provided by M-Webster. You used the wrong word warrancy...lol i cant get over this.... in place of the actual word you were going for which is warrant. Nowhere will you find a definition of warrancy as you intended, where as I have provided an example of how my usage was in fact correct. You cannot prove that my definition is incorrect, and thus your implication that I used it improperly was wrong. Thus, you are wrong. Wow, this is too easy. BOOYAH.</p>

[Blackdream]

<p>nspeds, it's unfortunate that you fell into my trap, again.</p>

<p>Of course, I am also a highschool graduate, but I DON'T go around and correct people like a college professor. I know I am pretty much un-educated (just like you) but I am humble about it, unlike you.</p>

<p>You did not call me anything of course, but you did call one of our poster "kid", while he's probably over 18.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
What I find hilarious is that you continue to beat a dead horse when you are the only one who used a word incorrectly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not infallible, so I accept correction when necessary.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You are the one who needed correction my sad friend. "Warrancy" LOL.. it isnt even a word. You meant warrant, but used a bogus word.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Odd, because my old Logic textbook can be accused of rampant usage of the word; I do admit, however, that it is a product of my debate-days.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I, on the other hand, used incredulous correctly according to M-Websters definition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But the only way to justify the merits of this definition is through that source, so you are begging the question. If you are such an expert in logic, such a group of words should be ringing the alarm bells.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You my friend have yet to prove that this definition is incorrect. The definition provided by other dictionaries does not indicate that my usage was incorrect, rather it simply does not provide sufficient information to disprove my alternative usage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are still begging the question; you must prove the merits of the definition you have used independently of the dictionary you cited. This can be resolved by citing other dictionaries or providing more thorough reasoning, neither of which you have accomplished. This is you:</p>

<p>You: Your definition is incomplete.
Me: Why?
You: Because the M-W Dictionary has more information.
Me: So is it possible that the M-W Dictionary could be incorrect, since I have multiple sources that indicate otherwise?
You: No.
Me: Why?
You: Because it is the M-W dictionary, and any other dictionary is necessarily incomplete.</p>

<p>You are begging the question, it is as simple as that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You have ignored that fact that nowhere does it say that the definition excludes and must therefore conflict with all other definitions which contain additional information.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The mere fact that the dictionary publishes such a definition demonstrates its "completeness." Once again, if you refer to my example, if Scientist A argues that object P only possesses properties X,Y,Z, and Scientist B argues that object P only possesses properties X,Y, then the conclusions necessarily conflict.</p>

<p>By the way, you have yet to cite the fallacy of such an argument.</p>

<p>
[quote]
YOU ARE WRONG.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Typing it repeatedly does not make it true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You must bite the bullet and either accept defeat or deny that M-Websyers definition is correct.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can assert the correctness of the dictionary's definition based on the definition provided by others. Since every dictionary I have checked undergirds my position, the Webster's version is inaccurate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you do the latter, you will make yourself look even more foolish than you already do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just like you are arguing that the American Heritage Dictionary is incorrect, right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
How do you like these apples?:
I claimed that you used an incorrect word, "warrancy", in place of the correct word warrant.</p>

<p>You did in fact use an incorrect word, "warrancy", in place of the correct word warrant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did I say that I was infallible? -2 on the Reading Comprehension Skills.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thus, you are wrong. Wow, this is too easy. BOOYAH.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Someone is insecure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have to admit it, Im addicted to this hogwash.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cheers for hypocrisy!</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
nspeds, it's unfortunate that you fell into my trap, again.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your atrocious grammar successfully obscures your "traps"; I doubt one should be proud of such a tactic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course, I am also a highschool graduate, but I DON'T go around and correct people like a college professor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never claimed that I was a college professor.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know I am pretty much un-educated (just like you)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but I am humble about it, unlike you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There has not been a single place in this forum where I have asserted my superiority in education or wisdom above anyone else; not once have I claimed that I am intelligent or that I am above anyone else. In fact, nearly all of the attacks that have taken place here are either by you or Kid, and that too, the attacks are rather... vulgar.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You did not call me anything of course, but you did call one of our poster "kid", while he's probably over 18.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The term "kid," was not used derisively; I simply used it because I am much to lazy to type his whole screen-name. Others in this thread have done the same, why do you not pounce on them?</p>

[Blackdream]

<p>You have all the patientice in the world to type a whole paper about nothing, but you have no patientice or respect to type a person's whole name.</p>

<p>"you never claimed you are a college professor"</p>

<p>Only college professor go through everyone's writing like you do, and they do it with more respect. Being uneducated as you are, you have no rights to correct our grammar. Come on, it's internet, how can you let us believe formally that you use English better than us? (Especially with kidarious above proving you wrong)</p>

<p>"Your atrocious grammar successfully obscures your "traps"; I doubt one should be proud of such a tactic."</p>

<p>Because you failed to argue rationally, you now blame on my "atrocious" grammar, what are you going to do next? blame a person's skin color not white enough because he's an African American? (I stated multiple times that English is my second language), as my grammar somehow made me an inferior person. Well, a well-known US politican is also from Texas, and his grammatical skill is less than good, why don't you say the same thing to him and vote him out of his office?</p>

<p>" know I am pretty much un-educated (just like you) </p>

<p>I agree."</p>

<p>that's about as vulgar as it gets here, while I am stating a fact, you are quoting me purely for insult. </p>

<p>"The term "kid," was not used derisively; I simply used it because I am much to lazy to type his whole screen-name. Others in this thread have done the same, why do you not pounce on them"</p>

<p>why don't I call you gay and tell you that this term was not used derisively?</p>

<p>"but referring to him as "kid" serves multiple purposes. "</p>

<p>basically you just contradicted yourself, "as you stated that [the only reason you did it is because you] were to lazy to write out the whole name."</p>

[kewkiekid]

<p>going back to the original point of this post...</p>

<p>i am a student at UCSC. the my.ucsc.website is part of a new system called AIS. AIS is the most annoying thing in the world and it likes to crash. a LOT. so don't expect the website to work for you. they're making it better but it still has issues. if you contact the UCSC tech people they can reset your password for you.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
Only college professor go through everyone's writing like you do, and they do it with more respect.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absurd argument number one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Being uneducated as you are, you have no rights to correct our grammar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do not even argue about rights.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Come on, it's internet, how can you let us believe formally that you use English better than us? (Especially with kidarious above proving you wrong)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absurd argument number two, I never asserted my superiority in English.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because you failed to argue rationally,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Excuse me, but it appears that you lack the reading comprehension skills to participate in this argument. You repeatedly shove words in my mouth and accuse me of acts I have never committed, and then you claim to have devised these "traps," which are really ambiguous and lack purpose.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you now blame on my "atrocious" grammar, what are you going to do next? blame a person's skin color not white enough because he's an African American?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absurd argument number three: fallacy of the false analogy.</p>

<p><a href="I%20stated%20multiple%20times%20that%20English%20is%20my%20second%20language">quote</a>, as my grammar somehow made me an inferior person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said it did make you inferior; do not argue with me about English if you are going to revert to the fact that English is your second language in order to save yourself from making faulty arguments.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, a well-known US politican is also from Texas, and his grammatical skill is less than good, why don't you say the same thing to him and vote him out of his office?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As a Libertarian, it is difficult to oust anyone from power through voting, especially one in Texas.</p>

<p>
[quote]
why don't I call you gay and tell you that this term was not used derisively?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do what you want, after much of our arguing, I hardly find your opinion worthwhile.</p>

<p>
[quote]
basically you just contradicted yourself, "as you stated that [the only reason you did it is because you] were to lazy to write out the whole name."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No I did not. The fact that I was too lazy served as a condition for my truncating his name, and the fact that it accurately reflected his mindset was just a side benefit, hence, multiple purposes.</p>

<p>If you cannot keep up with a discussion, then do not participate in it; I have typed numerous claims, all of which you selectively ignore, so there is no purpose in even arguing with you. I even instigated a private discussion on your request, but you contradict yourself by perpetuating this argument in a public arena. You argue that English is your second language, but perhaps that is a reason as to why you should not participate in a conversation that emphasizes English, and maybe even some logic. You can argue that this is discrimination, but thus far, your participation has contributed absolutely nothing to the argument between Kid and I, in fact, it has only exacerbated confusion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You have all the patientice in the world to type a whole paper about nothing, but you have no patientice or respect to type a person's whole name.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It only occupies me for about 5 minutes.</p>

[Blackdream]

<p>WOW</p>

<p>Personally I found nsped's arguing method extremely awesome. Anything that he doesn't like, he can dismiss it as "fallacy of logic, fallacy of fallacy of logic, vulgar insults, absurd arguments" or simply label your opinion "not worth awhile".</p>

<p>he's simply the best person at denial. I wonder if he lives in the same world as we do. man, he does a better job of denying than the iraqi info minister.</p>

<p>enjoy your little world in college. looks like not a whole lot of people will be friendly to you. I can accept a wide range of political/social opinions, but i can't accept anyone who can't accept opinions of the others.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
fallacy of logic, fallacy of fallacy of logic,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I thought one's opinion was really without worth, I would not bother responding.</p>

<p>Here is a link on logical fallacies - <a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/&lt;/a> - should you wish to educate yourself in the proper form of argumentation.</p>

<p>My work here is done.</p>

[Blackdream]

<p>I am not an expert in your so called "logical fallacy" so I don't know who the steven guy is, but your supporting material - "steven's homepage", hardly sounds like an authoritive, unbiased source.</p>

<p>I wouldn't expect to find unbiased infomation on <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.johnkerry.com&lt;/a> or <a href="http://www.GWbush.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.GWbush.com&lt;/a>, etc.</p>

<p>how convenient is to start a fight on a nice thread, block your ears and define everything you don't agree (or you don't understand) with logical fallacy, contradict yourself, call others names, and then get out, undefeated.</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
I am not an expert in your so called "logical fallacy", but your supporting material - "steven's homepage", hardly sounds like an authoritive, unbiased source.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow. You do not know what a logical fallacy is...</p>

<p>...I am literally speachless. Sorry, I am just stunned as I am attempting to muffle my mouth from laughter.</p>

<p>Continue, please do continue!</p>

[nspeds]

<p>Though I would love to perpetuate comedy by having you speculate on what this "logical fallacy" is, here is a more "authoritative" source...</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[kidicarus]

<p>fallacy of ramma lamma ding dong....he is just a sad pretentious prick some imagined sense of superiority. How dare he give you a link to "educate yourself in the proper form of argumentation." What a prick! Blackdream dont allow him to condescend to you... I never would have guessed that english was your second language. He thinks he has a strong command of the english language because he uses five dollar words, and constructs sentences as though it were the 1800's. You have every right to discuss this matter and it shows his ignorance to suggest otherwise. Lets just ignore his bs. Blackdream, where do you go/plan to go for school?</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
fallacy of ramma lamma ding dong....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So speaks the "logical master."</p>

<p>
[quote]
he is just a sad pretentious prick some imagined sense of superiority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, you are showing your bad reading skills; I never said I was superior.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How dare he give you a link to "educate yourself in the proper form of argumentation."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For someone who obviously does not know logic, I think it is proper to educate someone on such matters; I would have thought that the person who originally extolled the virtues of it, by accusing me of committing a fallacy, would have sided with me on this one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What a prick!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What was that? Maturity, right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
He thinks he has a strong command of the english language

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did I say so?</p>

<p>
[quote]
constructs sentences as though it were the 1800's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you mean 1600s? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You have every right to discuss this matter and it shows his ignorance to suggest otherwise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, and his refusal to learn logic, a framework that is essential to almost every field, is perfectly fine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Lets just ignore his bs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is all the dogmatist can say:).</p>

<p>Yes yes! We cannot learn logic, for it can be biased like bush.com!!!</p>

<p>Continue the comedy!</p>

[kidicarus]

<p>Do you really think you are so much more advanced in logic than I or anyone else? You are not. My reading abilities have nothing to do with your blatant display of imagined superiority. Spare us the condescension, you have no "warrancy" for your superior attitude. :)</p>

[nspeds]

<p>
[quote]
Do you really think you are so much more advanced in logic than I or anyone else? You are not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Judging from the quality of your argumentation, that is far from the truth.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My reading abilities have nothing to do with your blatant display of imagined superiority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes they do, because I have never mentioned that I was superior or that I was infallible; stop using my "condescension" as an excuse and argue. Since you have not responded to a single one of my arguments about the word "incredulous," I will just brush that under the mat as a win for me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Spare us the condescension, you have no "warrancy" for your superior attitude

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I always thought you were an independent thinker.</p>