wrote in message
...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.
--

John H


Pardon me, but I would say a lot better mannered. No offense to Harry of
course!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On 23-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Definition of "LOSER": Anyone who is not smart enough to get a union
or

government job.

Steve ;-)

LOL - Does it count if I *had* a union job? I ran a forklift a long time
ago
and had to join. Yes, it's not a typical female job.

Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted
vehicle?????


Affirmative action? No. My dad was an executive at the company and wanted me
to get some real work experience.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 24-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Affirmative action put a girl behind the wheel of an iron-ballasted
vehicle?????


Affirmative action? No. My dad was an executive at the company and wanted
me
to get some real work experience.

Sorry, actually - I was just pulling your tail. Glad you did it.

On 24-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and

rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

I'll go with the current description of chaos: http://www.usa.gov/

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:35:30 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

May the general public please forgive the 'rogue' prepositions in my
comments. I have too little time to proof these things adequately.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:35:30 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.

May the general public please forgive the 'rogue' prepositions in my
comments. I have too little time to proof these things adequately.


Sadly...

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama. Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush. And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like Bush would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look good. That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president *you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you. You're doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union member" names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.

I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But,
her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for
sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the
thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That
would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that
she means well, unlike Harry.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access