On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson < oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@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