I'm sorry. In the context of international politics I didn't expect you to think 'diplomacy' meant "tact". I should know better I guess.

I never claimed they were. Tact is used with deplomacy. What part of that do you not understand?

Here agian, how about stop trying to insult me and actually address my points.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

I think I'm addressing your points quite nicely.

Tact is used with diplomacy? But I thought you were arguing that, in this context, diplomacy is a synonym for tact. Make up your mind, Friend.

You obviously still haven't even read my earlier post yet. But to answer your question while you "gather" your thoughts/insults.

No, that was a copy and paste deffinition, directly from where Sine got the 1st deffinition. Sine "conveniently" left it out.

I left the "Tact" part in because that's an important part of diplomacy, I then gave the definition of tact that applies. However, as Tact is at least 90% of what diplomats must use, one could also probably say that they are synonyms, even within this "context." But that would be a personal preference and a very minor/irrelevent point, I might add.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

If you want to engage me in a semantics debate, you need to get it through your head that context determines the meaning of the word. Many words have multiple definitions, yet not all of them are significant for every use of the word. This is something you should have learned in elementary school, but I guess you were busy studying physics during that class.

Yes, and apparently you are incapable of reading the context of my earlier post (if you ever get around to it) or you would not of made your last 3-4 posts.

So, um, are you ever going to get around to stop BSing and actually addressing the points I made?

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

'You would not have.' For someone who can't even grasp the basic concepts of grammar and word use, you certainly seem to be pretty arrogant about your ability to argue semantics.

[I see you edited it. For the other readers, he said "would not of"]



See? You don't even know what 'BSing' means in any context. I'll define it for you: BSing is what most of us would agree is what you do in debates.
Me? I'm ripping you to bits. It's not a good thing, but it's definitely not 'BSing'.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 08, 2003).]

WTH? The only thing I did when I edited was added this line:

"So, um, are you ever going to get around to stop BSing and actually addressing the points I made?"

Your really getting pathetic, Jon.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

No, what your doing is known as a Red Herring.

How about you stop trying to change the focus and actually address the points in my earlier post, instead of continuing this Trolling bit.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

"You're" is the contraction for "You are". I do not own a "really getting pathetic", much as you do not understand "diplomacy in this context".

Red Herring? Did you have to look that up too?



Friend14, don't you see? I am covering your points. You wanted a semantics debate, and now you have one.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 08, 2003).]

No, YOU wanted a semantics debate. I want you to actually contribute something productive to this thread, for a change. Apparently, that's asking too much.

(besides, that was grammer; not semantics, anyhow.)

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

It takes two to debate, Friend.

And you're not debating the topic. As much as I keep trying to get you to do so, you refuse. So what exactly are you doing(Besides wasting a page of thread)? Trying to prove yourself?

Either stick to the topic at hand or walk away. That simple.

[edit: Changed your to you're before the Grammer Nazi's get me]
------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

haha.

Friend14, you made the assertation that your mangled definition of diplomacy was valid in this context. I disagreed. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it's right in line with your post.
As for your political ideas, I have absolutely no intention of arguing your regurgitated comments after Sine already handled them so well.

Why should anyone bother to debate with you? All you'll do is scream, "No, your rong!" for four pages, prove how little you know about the subject, and then run off like a little girl when you've been thoroughly defeated.

Planet X ring any bells? "You will now see that the bigger box hits the ground first. You can even fill the small box with rocks and leave the big one empty. As long as you hold them at the same hight and release them the same, the bigger one will always hit the ground first. Why is this? Because it's explained in Newton's theory. Objects that have a larger mass have more area for gravity to pull on. While an object with a smaller mass has less area for gravity pulled on. "

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited December 08, 2003).]

Mangled definition? Yeah, if you call being tactful in diplomacy mangling the difinition of the word "diplomacy."



...I'm still waiting for the punch line.



In other words, you have nothing productive to contribute to this thread. I understand completely.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

Now you're just desperate for me to stop. After all, if I'm able to demonstrate that you aren't qualified to discuss the English language, it isn't a great leap of logic to assume you aren't qualified to discuss history or politics either.

Will you be burying your head in the sand and hoping the thread gets dropped off the main page now, or later?

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 08, 2003).]

Pot calling the Kettle Black:

"Take two ships traveling at .95c heading straight towards each other. Now their heading towards each other at 1.9c. Newton's laws break down at relativistic speeds."

Familier, no?

The problem with this, of course, is while they are approaching each other at 1.9c, they will collide at the center (making the point of them approaching each other at 1.9c completely irrelevent). The force caluclated with this is in the form of F sub 12 + F sup 21 = 0. Unfortunately, this is only the Mathimatical form. Newton's third law is F sup 12 = -F sup 21. In other words, the two ships are still only traveling (as an indipendant system) at only .95c. It's just when you do the math, you can move the varibles around. You tried to apply that to their indipendent velocity.

All aside, this is just another attempt at a red herring

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

No, feel free to continue if you actually have something productive to contribute.

But, your sad attempt at bashing my grammer skills (which I rush through), is uncomparable to your poor, fallacious argument tactics.



Actually, I'll be going to bed now, but will check the thread tomorrow after classes to see if anything productive as been added to the discussion.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

This thread was informative...until about middle of page 3. Then it became mudslinging fest. I am really afraid of posting my opinions on this topic for fear of someone tearing me apart. I believe someone pointed out here or on another thread, that we can't have civilized discussions of important topics. I agree with that. Friend14 and Jon'C are at each other's throats over grammar and semantics, Sine hates Mort-Hog... I would surmise that a good number of us are petrified to say a couple of words.

I honestly have to ask, can I have the assuradness of you all if I post an intelligent sounding post despite it disagreeing with your own point of view or are you going to personal attack me? This isn't rhetorical or sarcastic in nature.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

I'll certianly give an open-minded response...but tomorrow...



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

...that's exactly the opposite of what I said: "[Y]ou might as well argue that two spacecraft each moving at .99c toward the same point from opposite directions will approach each other at 1.98c. It's the same sort of situation--like the Bohr model, the Newtonian velocity equation falls apart when dealing with relativistic speeds."



Hahahahaha, no, they aren't--that's the whole point! Talk about being clueless.

Since my original statement is undebatably correct, I expect an immediate apology for the 'pot and kettle' comment. You'll never find an instance where I've been as catastrophically wrong as you usually are, so don't bother looking.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited December 09, 2003).]

With much respect, but that stinks. If the same had happened with America, people would've started funds, support groups, and the nephew of a cousin of a mother of a victim would go on Oprah. People would be in ***ing shock: "how can we not nuke them?" If you would say to them: "hey, it's no biggie, it's collateral damage", they will hang you, not even in some sort of figure of speech sense. They will hang you.

Those planes were not intended primarily to kill people, but to take the symbols of America down. If you want to kill people, you don't go crashing into the Pentagon(symbol of American military). I even heard they were heading for the White House. People would be killed, but why waste a plane on a few people when you can kill LOTS of them.

Those civilians were collateral damage. Actually weird to see how calling something that, makes them cold and far away. I can see why you people have a fetish over it. Let me try it again. US civilians killed on 9/11 were collateral damage.*

Cool.

It's funny, give we can predict the quantum state and phase of a dozen of galaxies in 200 million years, accelerate microbiological lifeforms, regenerate telomerase, but when we try to kill a terrorists and hit 9 kids instead, we say stuff like "it ****ing happens"

I also find it hilarious and despicable at the same time that people such as yourself try to give the killing of 9 kids a justification that suits your political agenda.

You also make the analogy of trees felled by a hurricane. It's strange you should use trees to describe Iraqi kids while you use terms as despicable to state your emotions on the killing of American civilians.

My psychology background trains me to see things in their own light: Ted Kaczynski sends bombs to people, but he has been diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, so we don't put him into jail but into a mental institute.

However, and even though I'm a big fan of human mistake, you can only take that so far. This could be excusable as a rare event, but not after all the **** Iraq has been through. Those kids are dead. DEAD. Telling their mothers about collateral damage won't make them sing their mourning koran verses with any less passion. Dead, man.

Collateral damage, dead.

*I still believe 9/11 was indeed a demented tragedy

[This message has been edited by Tenshu (edited December 08, 2003).]

Hahaha.

...

Hahahahahaha.

Wow, this thread deteriorated fast. I would recommend you guys all stop by the Jaiph's Peace thread before you start typing again. All of you are acting like **** to each other.

And since when does grammar or physics have anything to do with International Affairs? I realize you guys are out to make Friend14 look dumb but it just makes you look like fat **** bullies.

------------------
~amor sui~
<< schming stout >>

Close, but no, it's not the same thing. The world trade center was NOT a military target. Also, 3000 (?) innocents died. Additionally, their deaths were not an ACCIDENT. So, on one side, we have an intentional 3000 to 0 ratio of innocents to military targets destroyed, intentionally. On the other side, we have a 9 to 1 ratio, by accident.

Also, I don't know about other people, but were the terrorists to..say...shoot a rocket at a tank (this is theoretical, bear with me) in America, and it were to miss and hit a coffee shop, killing 9 civilians and one soldier, I certainly would NOT consider it some horrible terrorist act. Horrible yes, but no one said that THIS incident wasn't horrible. It is, all of it is. But there's a difference between intentional mass death of innocents and accidental death of civilians.

Strangely enough, if I recall correctly, the US was supporting Iraq (against Khomeini) at that time.

The outcome of this incident was obviously an accident as a result of insufficient recon (like the US bombing the People's Republic of China embassy in Belgrad). It's not as if the US has an agenda to kill as many bystanders as possible. They're under the magnifying glass of the world enough as it is already. But what I'm still wondering about is why US pilots strafed a convoy of fleeing refugees during the Kosovo incident (as witnessed by Spanish fighter pilots), and why the HELL did that Abrams gunner decide to slam a tank round into the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad?

Same reason any tragedies happen in war. War is scary, even to soldiers. No matter how well you train your soldiers, one or two are gonna act irrationally from time to time, in fear of death, or just in an act of over-zealousness. Bad intel, mis-interpreted intel, misheard radio contact, etc, etc. Plenty can go wrong between the strategy and the implementation.

This is the root of the entire argument, really. When 4 canadians died from a US bomber in Afghanistan, the pilot was criticized. Why? Because it was a more popular war. One guy screws up in Iraq however, and all of the sudden, the entire US military effort is at blame. They should have tried this, they should have done that - Had the people involved in what I'm sure was a well-planned attack done their job correctly, had the equipment worked the way it was intended, it would have resolved itself in the same way that literally thousands of such attacks in this war have - Bad guy dead, good people alive.

Of course they arn't, that was the point I was trying to get accross to you. Which you obviously missed.

But yes, you apparently have no clue as to what inertial frames of references are and what they represent. Further more you have no clue as to the differences between two non-inertial frames of refference and how the MATH is calculated between them. As I tried to make apparent to you earlier, there is a big difference between the MATH and what is actually happening within the individual systems.

This is irrelevent, however as it's simply another use of red herring and poisoning the well fallacies in an attempt to discredit me.

Back to topic.



There's a little bit of difference here. A rocket is an appropriate amount of force against a tank. And even then, it's a far cry from over-kill.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

Good God, Friend14, you just said, "The problem with this, of course, is while they are approaching each other at 1.9c, they will collide at the center (making the point of them approaching each other at 1.9c completely irrelevent)." Each ship certainly does not see the other approaching at 1.9c, and it certainly has nothing to do with collision or Newton's third law or any of the other buzz words you've been spewing. It's called a "Lorentz velocity transformation"--look it up.

Did you even read the link? It uses exactly the same example I did, and gives exactly the same explanation. Specifically:



For reference:



Clearly, the debated statement is completely correct: Newtonian velocity addition fails at relativistic speeds. At low speeds, each spacecraft sees the other approaching at 2v. At relativistic speeds, each spacecraft sees the other approaching at 2v/(1+(v^2)/c^2). This is fundamental, undebatable high school physics.

Given that you've been unable to reference any instance where I've posted something as horribly incorrect as your "bigger objects fall faster" comment, I expect you to immediately rescind the 'pot and kettle' accusation.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited December 09, 2003).]

Jon, what in the ****ing hell is wrong with you? Even more puzzling, why in god's name aren't you banned? Jesus, give it a REST. You're extremely . . . something I wish I could say on these forums!

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

Just ignore him less you get the hammer too...

Argath, I have replied in e-mail as there is no need to continue theses red herrings.

If anyone would like to a copy of what I sent him, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you as well. I covered some very intresting (and shocking) concepts. Most of which are included with Velocital Physics, a basic overhall that's being done on Classical and Modern Physics at my University. It's recieved very high praise thus far by the local Physics Professors, Phyicist, and Researchers at the National Space, Science, and Technology Center here in Huntsville. We're hoping to wrap things up and submit it for final approval within the next few months.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 09, 2003).]

Yes, Friend14 sent me an e-mail that claims that "while an observer will never see an object travel faster then the speed of light, this does not prevent an object from traveling at speeds near, at, or greater then c". Hahahaha.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited December 09, 2003).]

If only people would actually listen to the administrators... I'm surprised a couple people aren't banned already.

Stay on topic, please.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited December 09, 2003).]

More red herring, but none the less, it's a long e-mail, finish reading it before you laugh.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

Probably because I didn't break any rules, and I made sure that a couple of admins didn't have a problem with it.
Trying out for the Junior Mods this year or something?



Argumentum ad nauseam.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 09, 2003).]

It can be easily argued that you have broken rules, Jon.

I, for one, do not appreciate browsing through an entire page of your gibberish with the sole purpose of antagonizing Friend14. You should have stayed on topic.

Edit - just clarified something.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited December 09, 2003).]

Going off topic to poke holes in someone's debating record may be annoying, but not against the rules.

I would recommend though just to be polite to the thread's original poster to move this physics discussion to a new thread. I'm personally finding it a good read, for the most part

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian & A Very Massassian Xmas
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

Woah i should know better than to read more than the first page of 4 page threads :/

I thought there might actually be some constructive debating actually still going on after reading the first few posts....



------------------
Rah!