Conversation on hash tags?
This is pollution of a #HashTurd & #hashturds . If you are going to make conversations on other’s definitions then there is no need for them. If they only exist in conversations (your other option) why use them at all?
Here is one embedded one #cuntification – basically related to this story.
We should stay on the topic of a #hashtag …
even more focused than any other thought.
None of your reasons above work over here. it must be that they contain assumptions that i do not share. Could you please explain the assumptions that make those reasons seem logical to you??
Let me show you the next time you define a #hashturd & I will take it off topic.
but i disagree that, “If you are going to make conversations on other’s definitions then there is no need for them.” … rather as long as the dialog is focused on the topic to which the sign refers, it is almost the best place for it ... because then when somebody uses that sign, that thinking is instantly available … even with illustrations.
I think you brought up a good point … commentary on a #hashtag should always be tightly focused.
i resent you using #hashtrud instead of #hashtag … please call out a thing with a reasonable sign which does not prejudge against its very meaning.
What you care about #FoxAndFriends or even what you care about my awareness of the program is not about the TV program itself, but rather just about you. Hence it is off topic.
or is it that you simply do not like the topic i brought up. Fine then, talk against the topic i brought up, but not about me … which is a change in topic. You always seem to try to kill the messenger, rather than the message. By doing so, you are making a classical #fallacy of thought.
Nobody has yet to like my tweet … but that is off the topic of “Conversations on hashtags”.
I think focusing and staying on topic is quite a discipline which does help build confidence in one’s thinking.
rather it is the force which makes reason work
i know it says something very specific that i have not heard said about the topic.
It is a true mathematical formula, just like the three laws which it relates.
I think it should be the first thing taught in a introductory class on logic.
It accurately specifies a limitation on the application of binary logic.
i actually use it frequently to know why a proposition seems true to one but false to another.
#identity 3 laws #logic
I have no pertinant positive or negative feedback from anyone. #PatHayes, a professor of logic, just said it was about “applying logic” and so he seemed disinterested. Incidentally i am unsure whether the copula should be “implies” or “entails” … but that is a very fine point. I have yet to hear somebody actually understand it and give me either negative or positive feedback. I do not think that lack of uninformed feedback bears on the truth of the formula.
#btw, can you site an example where that situation does not hold?