<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>
>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>
> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.

Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to say
unless he says otherwise.

> I couldn't find a dictionary
> definition,
There are 26 of them here http://www.onelook.com/?w=elegant&ls=a
From the first, Encarta..
2. concise: pleasingly and often ingeniously neat, simple, or concise
an equation elegant in its simplicity

> but here it is explained:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> from: Jeremy
> . . .
> It is sort of unfortunate when natural language adjectives get used
> scientifically, because they carry over connotations we don't
> necessarily want for their technical uses. This is particularly
> confusing when the adjectives connote something positive, like
> "elegance" . It is hard to imagine someone using the word "elegant"
> in natural language without it connoting something positive, and that
> can make the technical use of the term seem a little pompous.
>
> "Elegance" in the technical sense is something that can be defined
> technically --although not 100% precisely-- , but no one is required
> to find this property "elegant" in the natural language sense. They
> might even find what we call elegant distasteful, and in fact many do.
>
> Contrast this with an adjective like "concise" , which has both a
> technical and natural language use; but these both coincide.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/38ubnn
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> That tells us the term itself was the wrong one to use and doesn't
> even apply to what Goo wrote, much less is the misused term
> correct in suggesting that the Goober's argument is elegant. He
> presented it fairly eloquently, and that's the most that can be said
> for it in that regard.

None of that says that it was the wrong term. His argument, which was not
included, needed to be concise and ingenious, I have no doubt that it was.


>>It never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
>>automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack
>>substance,
>>but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.
>>
>>>> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>>>> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>>>> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>>>
>>>> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
>>>> along
>>>> with logic and reason.
>>>>
>>>> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that
>>>> it
>>>> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise,
>>>> and
>>>> decidely not elegant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
>>> "ELEGANCE" you ****.
>>
>>Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
>>away." - The Doobie Brothers
>>
>>> You're getting goofier than Goo.
>>
>>A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
>>convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>>products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
>
> No. You're very wrong. Goo is Goobernicus because he's a moron
> who thinks he's a genius, and that is what gives him his glorious Goobal
> distinction.

Ahh! That makes you the greatest of all Goos, because the gap between your
intelligence and your self-image is infinite.

>>By that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?
>
> No, because you're lying. You can't be put in the Goobernicus category
> for the same reason the Goober lives there, because you're not as extreme
> as he is in the Goobal respect. But! Since you're his boy and you support
> his lies in similar opposition to giving consideration to the lives of the
> creatures
> on this planet, you are voluntarily on team Goober because you love being
> there, making you a goo too.

Opposition to your circular, self-serving nonsense is the essence of what
makes us all Goos. It is rare that a concept is conceived that is so lame,
so vile, that it causes mortal enemies to see eye-to-eye. The LoL is that.