Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: ...not necessarily!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,214
    not necessarily, no format was specified and on second thoughts what is a "not necessarily claim". This is an evolving format.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,611
    Second part of your reply are second thoughts to the first part.

    Not necessarily. When did that become a law of the Universe?

    The laws of the Universe don't have second thoughts.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,585
    Not necessarily! This thread is firmly in the Nicolasverse, and in the Nicolasverse thou shall second-thought thy counterarguments!

    ...unless you're not willing to play by the rules of course.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    1,788
    Not necessarily! Dr. House could be playing.

    ...unless it's just Hugh Laurie

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, as Mr. Laurie's disdain for both playing doctor and playing house is well documented.

    Unless of course you were referring to circus performer Huge Lori.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,082
    ETA: Please ignore, i didn't notice we had gone to a third page already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    (and now stick to the format of the game everyone: First part of your reply is the...not necessarily claim. Second part of your reply are second thoughts to the first part.)
    Not necessarily. The thoughts written down in the second part might have been first thoughts, not second thoughts.
    Of course it could be near impossible to think of possible flaws in a statement you haven't come up with yet.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, a proof of some statement will often prove many other statements as a by-product, and the prover may not have thought of the negation of those other statements yet.

    Of course, if you are capable of coming up with a flawed statement after-the-fact, you may have been incapable of discovering its flaws in the first place.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,214
    Not necessarily, a flaw in a statement may lie in ambiguity seen by another but never intended. On the otherhand multilayered ambiguity may be the sole intention of any statement along the lines of "I mean never to mean what I mean to say"

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,585
    Not necessarily. It depends on whether you mean to be mean or not.

    Unless of course it's one of those cases where you are mean without meaning it. People are so easily hurt.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,214
    Not necessarily, you are not responsible for other people's feelings. If you mean to be mean that means one thing but if someone takes their own mean between what you mean and what they mean, well I mean that's their own business.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,082
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    If you mean to be mean that means one thing
    Not necessarily, if you mean to be mean to a masochist that means another thing. On the other hand, meaning to be mean to a masochist might mean not being mean.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,214
    Not necessarily we should distinguish between what we mean and what is the reaction of anyone else including masochists. If we attempt to modifiy our meaning to suit our audience we are making assumptions which change our meaning from what we think we are meaning to what we think another thinks we are meaning. Even when this is not what we mean.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, I mean, really!

    Unless of course, I don't

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,585
    ...Not necessarily. Even if you mean that profloater isn't necessarily right, your assessment simply might be wrong.

    Unless of course people don't make errors in judgement. In that case, whatever we say would be right or a conscious lie.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, you are assuming that we have free will and are in control of all of our thoughts and actions, which I think we do but can't prove.

    Unless of course we are in the matrix.

Similar Threads

  1. Why would blind cave fish necessarily lose their eyes?
    By Click Ticker in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-14, 10:10 PM
  2. Are particles necessarily three dimensional?
    By Grey in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-03, 02:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •