On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson <
oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I must have been away too long, but seriously,
guys, what's up with
this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you
can figure out what the hell I mean!"
Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes
equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still
no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5%
came from.
Steve
Hear! Hear!
Context "slog" - the mathies are still upset apparently.
But IIRC I dealt with it though, and quite thoroughly I might add,
in that "lack of progress bars" post earlier in this thread.
That out of the way I don't understand Steve how a couple
late offhand comments apparently inspired you to comment
on the original post, which you appear to suggest lacked
context. It had a link to a talk page discussion - an involved
description I did not give here because, well..
Anyway that debate at [[Talk:Perfect crime]] is on the back burner.
I've said all I have to say on that there, namely that:
1) a literary superlative+concept does not a special well-defined article
make:
1a) such that it be considered a formal well-defined concept
1b) such that it exclude relevant, linkable concepts.
2) a conceptual_negation+concept(~aspects) opens the door for
~negated_aspect:
2a) to be at least mentioned.
2b) to be defined in relative context.
Fanciful anti-theistic inconsequentialism apparently has its defenders
though.
-Steven