Dan,

It was in early April of this year. Do learn to look things up. Real students can, you know. Then you would be a lesser blight on the public face of "christianity".

You are consistently unfaithful in samll things Dan. Therefore I think you are a sham. Your touted beliefs do not motivate you to good behaviour in even minor matters. I already think your "religion" (most particularly and especially your literalist subtype) is garbage. It doesn't prevent you being a liar, even about small matters.

You are a hypocrite, Dan. An habitual liar. Get over it.

Rusty

JanF,

No, I don't think so.

Dan adopts a lofty tone and pretends to a knowledge of technical matters and of academic standards in numerous eforts to appear authoritative (particularly in evolutionvsreligion matters).

His views are shallow and poorly informed. His views against science are malignantly misinformed and intended to sway any who might not be able to contradict him conveniently. He is a shill for an organisation that wants a visibly shabby theology to control more of our decision making processes and organistaions.

He needs showing up frequently so as to prevent him misleading others, which he tries to do whenever uncorrected.

Rusty

Thanks, JanF,
You have to wonder what is motivating this. As Rusty says, “Apologies to Burqa debate,” but there’s a lynching to be had here over a spelling error.

Pericles,
On this website, we give our opinions in 350 words or less. I gave my opinion over the authorised spelling of a word. It has since been corrected.

Spelling errors are not considered heinous crimes, unless you want to make them so. Spelling is not the highest of all values for most people, mathematicians included. Spelling errors are only really a grave sin perhaps for book publicists and spelling bee contestants.

The exponential function does have particular and general aspects to it. (If you don’t believe me, or don’t understand what I’m talking about, then ask David Fisher. DavidF is someone who browses these web pages, and is someone whom I perceive as having more experience in mathematics than myself.) As I mentioned earlier, it has the particular characteristic that for the exponential e^x, where e is the number (approximately 2.7182818), the function equals its own derivative.There are also the more general family of exponential functions that don’t have this exact quality.

By the way, if you reach for your dictionary, you’ll see that you are wrong. Expediential is a real word.

expediential, (adjective)
Of, relating to, or concerned with what is expedient.

But we’ll hold off the public hanging. Although it’s been a while since we’ve seen a nice tar and feathering.

In general, I think I should be honoured that intelligent people would bother to hold my postings up to such scrutiny.

Rusty,
You spoke earlier of the important need to reference things properly. (Was that only for me, or does that count for others also?)

As I asked previously, can you reference your allegation of summed probabilities so that we have a chance of knowing what you are talking about. Otherwise it remains inherently vague and unsubstantiated (it looks like you’re making it up).

You’re making a personal accusation against me. Reference it or withdraw it.

Put up or shut up.

Pericles- <If there is no law against wearing swastikas on their clothing or Klu Klux Klan outfits what is the case for singling out the Burqa.>

I think you will find the police(the law) would be brought in pretty quickly if groups of people persisted in wearing these outfits in public even after being criticised in the media or warned by the police not to do it. They would very promptly be asked to leave any coffee shop that Antiseptic might be sipping his latte in. Why? If there is no law against it.

If they didn’t leave the coffee shop the police would then be called.(the Law) - but you say there is no law against it.

The laws they would use to prosecute them would be wearing an outfit in public so as to cause fear or for being a public nuisance. Have no doubt they could and would use these laws if people persisted in wearing these outfits. The law hasn’t been used yet because normally people are intelligent enough not to cause offence by wearing them or to desist after being warned. But the law would be used.

So no, I don’t agree with you that there is no law against wearing these outfits. It must be concluded that if tested to the extreme there would be a law used to stop it.

There were a group of soldiers recently who took photographs of themselves wearing Klu Klux Klan outfits, you may have seen this in the newspapers. The army said they would investigate the incident. Why? If as you say you are free to wear what you like in this country.

Do you think Prince Harry will ever wear a Swastika to a fancy dress party again?

Dan,

So, you are finally demonstrating that when it applies to lies you care about, *suddenly* truthfulness matters.

All of my posts contain errors.

It took an example applying to your own precious self to bring you to this, while your *own* lying remains below your radar.

Oh, you object to illustrative examples? Get over yourself.

You possess the skills, or want to be regarded as such, use them.

And for the record, and to cement the issue firmly for you, casually stating that "expodential" is an "accepted term" you were taught in school, *as if* you were privy to some special knowledge, is lying. A lie. A deliberate falsehood. That makes you according to my dictionary a liar. Both my standard dictionary and my full OED.

*you* are the habitual and self-serving liar here Dan. Fix it, stop complaining like a caught-out schoolchild, just fix it.

Understand?

Rusty

"After nearly 10 years of marriage that produced five children,
Mufleh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia still has not seen his wife’s face"
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-women-s-veil-versus-modernity-2010-12-05-1.325035?

Maybe this burqa thing is not such a bad idea.
Some people may prefer not to see the mantelpiece when they're stoking the fire,
particularly when the old girl is getting a bit past it.