[WikiEN-l] Perfection

[stevertigo]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson <
oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at 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