Page 1 of 2
Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:17 pm
by Phil8659
Editors (Philosophy Now)
From:
editors@philosophynow.org
To:
johnclark8659@yahoo.com
Tue, Dec 2 at 6:02 AM
Sorry no, too technical for us
LMAO, Then the dialogs of Plato must be like in another reality for you.
So, if dialectic is to too technical, the foundation of grammar, should I submit a coloring book?
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:37 pm
by FlashDangerpants
They were being polite. All your work is total shit.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:06 pm
by Phil8659
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:37 pm
They were being polite. All your work is total shit.
Oh, dear! The illiterate sociopath is giving me a crisis of faith!
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:08 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:06 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:37 pm
They were being polite. All your work is total shit.
Oh, dear! The illiterate sociopath is giving me a crisis of faith!
You should email them back and see if they are interested in a simplified version. They will ask you to please not submit that.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:12 pm
by Phil8659
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:08 pm
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:06 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:37 pm
They were being polite. All your work is total shit.
Oh, dear! The illiterate sociopath is giving me a crisis of faith!
You should email them back and see if they are interested in a simplified version. They will ask you to please not submit that.
That was as simple as it gets.
The second one, which they have not commented on yet, is the actual complicated one. But, I am just going to put the two together, and post on the Archive. The figure I did, was obvious to me from the start, almost 50 years ago, and it is an offshoot of a Euclidean square root figure. I do a simplified Mathcad proof of it today.
In my book The Delian Quest, you will see the proof of concept, when I took any segment that was less than 1/3 of another, and showed how it is placed to form a triplicate ratio. That was 1993. From 1993, it was clear, that what was said about the triplicate ratio was false.
It allowed me to draw the cube root figure in order to learn relationships. So, early on I was working with a dynamic figure.
The very first figure I start the project with, held the answer and remains the foundation of the solution. It is a fundamental figure in Euclidean Geometry. I turned it into a method of squaring two lines.
In the 1993 figure, given two lines, one less than 1/3 of the other, produce a cube root figure using a right triangle. Which I did. Demo number 110993 Month, day, year. Delian Quest.
It seems if one wants a work of ideas, one is not going to find it in Philosophy Now.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 6:11 pm
by Phil8659
If you place a square on each segment of a cube root figure, the center square resides exactly in a right triangle, over all three segments.
So, I am going to do another proof of the figure, using what I learnt in 1993. One can use the point and walk it back using what I learnt there. I like walking the ladder of a figure with equations. It is like monkey bars in a gym.
Has anyone realized that there are a lot of sites claiming to support something, when their real goal is to destroy it.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:15 pm
by Phil8659
Only 9 equations to proof the figure using the 1993 facts of a cubic series.
at least 15 decimal places of arithmetic accuracy in Sketchpad.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:45 pm
by accelafine
It's said that if you can't explain something to your grandmother then you don't know your subject.
You can rant and rave and blame everyone else all you like. If you really knew anything about anything you would be more than happy to share it. Instead you just insult anyone who is foolhardy enough to ask.
Take your schizophrenic 'ravings of a madman' and put them to good use eg as kindling or toilet paper.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:47 pm
by Phil8659
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:45 pm
It's said that if you can't explain something to your grandmother then you don't know your subject.
You can rant and rave and blame everyone else all you like. If you really knew anything about anything you would be more than happy to share it. Instead you just insult anyone who is foolhardy enough to ask.
Take your schizophrenic 'ravings of a madman' and put them to good use eg as kindling or toilet paper.
So that is why you are bitchy, you are too senile to understand your kids. You keep forgetting that any kid who has passed Algebra can easily read my work. Might want to write that down on the back of your hand.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:55 pm
by accelafine
See what I mean? You won't even say what anyone is supposed to 'do' with your insane rantings. You just keep repeating the word 'grammar' ad nauseam.
''To the world, I present.......drum roll..... GRAMMAR!!!!''
Nut-job.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:57 pm
by Phil8659
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:55 pm
See what I mean? You won't even say what anyone is supposed to 'do' with your insane rantings. You just keep repeating the word 'grammar' ad nauseam.
''To the world, I present.......drum roll.....
GRAMMAR!!!!''
Nut-job.
Well, I know you cannot remember what I wrote for more than two sentences, but trust me, your senility is not the standard of comprehension.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:01 am
by accelafine
Americans and irony. Bless them...
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:05 am
by Phil8659
accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:01 am
Americans and irony. Bless them...
American, what do you call a meathead when told that geometry is wholly metaphorical, they keep asking what is a meta for?
That is the same as asking what is 1 for, demonstrating that you cannot even count.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:14 am
by accelafine
Ok dear. Take another med and have a lie down.
Re: Too Technical for us.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:16 am
by Phil8659
accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 12:14 am
Ok dear. Take another med and have a lie down.
So, maybe you can explain to the world, how a universal is a particular. Everyone who can think will be very interested in that explanation.