<p>Allness, word or not, doesn't belong in quotes.</p>
<p>Find me a single usage of the term single hypothesis causality in any work, scholarly or non-scholarly. Quoting a random person won't get you off the hook.</p>
<p>Logic trap is just you being stupid.</p>
<p>Lasker, that was shady! he was only answering questions and making statements...no need to go on and bash someones writing skills; its just the internet.</p>
<p>Lasker:</p>
<p>Why so very angry? Why do you automatically assume the worst of others? How is it that those engaging in simple conversation suddenly become fools, or stupid, or inferior writers to you, or inferior to you in every other way, perhaps? Why is it necessary to mount ad hominem attacks when your assertions have been challenged? </p>
<p>Clearly, you have not read Korzybski and haven't the slightest idea what he had to say. There's nothing wrong with that. No one can have read everything. It's not necessary to launch attacks on tangential topics, or ad hominem attacks for that matter. This is not what reasoned discourse is meant to be. It's the same with AM Leslie. Not everyone has the opportunity to hear others lecture. There's nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>I'm sure that if you peruse Leslie's work, you will find the term. I haven't the time to do your research for you. In any event, the term is self-explanatory, don't you think?</p>
<p>I wish we could correspond like reasonable adults, but that seems unlikely, if not impossible. So I will end this. You are free to go on attacking others because you believe they are your inferiors. No one can stop you. But I doubt it will make you happy, and I wish you happiness and success in life. I am sincere in that.</p>
<p>Take care.</p>
<p>After losing the grammar war, Tarhunt has gained the upper hand by staking out the moral high ground. By wishing Lasker the best of luck and declaring the argument over, Lasker's e-credibility and e-reputation are now in jeopardy!</p>
<p>Can Lasker bounce back? </p>
<p>Tune in next time for an all new episode of INTERNET WARS!!</p>
<p>Lame (10).</p>
<p>well i just think it's funny that people chose VT over UVA. i mean come on now. who would do that.
wahoowa</p>
<p>and yes if uva hadn't been my first choice the other colleges that accepted me wanted me a whole lot more than uva and were higher ranked at that! they called a lot and send me information at least once a month trying to get me to go there. uva i never got anything from! but alas i love uva so they didn't need to. good or bad? who knows.</p>
<p>also i volunteered to go speak at my hs about uva and little response. so it might not be uva's fault.</p>
<p>hazelorb, many UVA-VT cross admits would be offered merit aid at VT. For some people a free or substantially discounted education is more appealing than paying full fare at UVA.</p>
<p>hazelrob:</p>
<p>There are other reasons to choose Virginia Tech. In addition to the one cavalier302 offers, here are some more:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Tech may have a course of study UVA doesn't offer; e.g., agriculture.</p></li>
<li><p>Tech may have engineering specialities UVA doesn't offer, or may be stronger in those specialites.</p></li>
<li><p>Some people choose a school because they like the football team. VT's football team is more successful than UVA's.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'm sure there are more.</p>
<p>I doubt anyone who has the ability to get into UVA would choose their school based on the football team, unless they come from a really crappy, noncompetitive school. The main thing we're talking about here is what cav already said.</p>
<p>sv3a:</p>
<p>You could be right, but even on these boards, you'll find people searching for schools with big time football teams and/or successful ones. People make decisions for all kinds of reasons you and I may think are ... well ... odd.</p>
<p>Given the number of people applying to these schools, I think the probability is high that at least a very small number of them make sports-related decisions.</p>