Fractals

[current]

Yah it's not really "me" and "you," it's more of "you" versus everyone else.

 

If you use language that no one else understands, you need to be aware that they're going to get pretty frustrated with you.

 

*Insisting* that others accept your language is a good way to generate outright hostility, and you may find yourself ostracized and ridiculed for it.

 

And not unjustifiably so.

 

If you want to actually promote a new concept, just stealing a word that means something else is generally considered a really bad idea.

 

 

All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe, :phones:

Buffy

Is what I'm trying to convey really that tough ? Or is what I'm trying to convey tough on your understanding of fractals ?

[Turtle]

Current Fractal

Edited June 4, 2017 by Turtle

[current]

 

Fractals in life come down to gentics.

[Turtle]

Fractals in life come down to gentics.

No they don't.

[current]

No they don't.

Fractals in life do .

[Turtle]

Fractals in life do .

No they don't.

[current]

No they don't.

Go on ....

[Buffy]

Is what I'm trying to convey really that tough ? Or is what I'm trying to convey tough on your understanding of fractals ?

 

Is what I'm trying to convey really that tough ? Or is what I'm trying to convey tough on your understanding of language and communication?

 

Your original post in this thread was:

 

The only true fractals are in life forms.

 

Turtle and I have conclusively pointed to the fact that this statement is false with respect to the generally accepted definition of Fractals.

 

You've now decided to try to say you're just "trying to convey" something, but your original post was a direct misstatement of the meaning of a word. 

 

If you're really "trying to convey" something, the best way *not* to convey it is to directly attack people's accepted definition of terms.

 

If you're really "trying to convey" something that is a refinement or focusing of a concept to a specific phenomena, the worst possible way to convey it is to say "y'all use this word *wrong* it only means what *I* want it to mean!" 

 

That's actually the *only* thing you conveyed in your original post.

 

Now if you want to "convey" some other meaning, either focusing on a class of the general term or refining it, cool, but you do that by just describing what you're talking about in detail and then maybe, if it's additionally edifying, you come up with a new or modified term.

 

Although you've really described almost nothing of what you're talking about, I can throw out a wild guess that something like "living fractals" or "dynamic fractals" might be a useful term. Or heck make up a term like "wabe." But that's not what you've done: you've just spit in the faces of some people who clearly know more about fractals than you do, and you've just stood up and said we're all stupid because the "only true fractals are living things."

 

Thus you're in a deep hole in trying to convince anyone that you're "just trying to convey something" when it looks to everyone else that you're attacking random strangers.

 

That's what we call in polite company "anti-social" or more colloquially "a troll."

 

Pissing people off is generally considered a bad idea.

 

So, you wanna try that again?

 

 

If you can see whether I'm singing or not, you've sharper eyes than most, :phones:

Buffy

[current]

Is what I'm trying to convey really that tough ? Or is what I'm trying to convey tough on your understanding of language and communication?

 

Your original post in this thread was:

 

 

 

Turtle and I have conclusively pointed to the fact that this statement is false with respect to the generally accepted definition of Fractals.

 

You've now decided to try to say you're just "trying to convey" something, but your original post was a direct misstatement of the meaning of a word. 

 

If you're really "trying to convey" something, the best way *not* to convey it is to directly attack people's accepted definition of terms.

 

If you're really "trying to convey" something that is a refinement or focusing of a concept to a specific phenomena, the worst possible way to convey it is to say "y'all use this word *wrong* it only means what *I* want it to mean!" 

 

That's actually the *only* thing you conveyed in your original post.

 

Now if you want to "convey" some other meaning, either focusing on a class of the general term or refining it, cool, but you do that by just describing what you're talking about in detail and then maybe, if it's additionally edifying, you come up with a new or modified term.

 

Although you've really described almost nothing of what you're talking about, I can throw out a wild guess that something like "living fractals" or "dynamic fractals" might be a useful term. Or heck make up a term like "wabe." But that's not what you've done: you've just spit in the faces of some people who clearly know more about fractals than you do, and you've just stood up and said we're all stupid because the "only true fractals are living things."

 

Thus you're in a deep hole in trying to convince anyone that you're "just trying to convey something" when it looks to everyone else that you're attacking random strangers.

 

That's what we call in polite company "anti-social" or more colloquially "a troll."

 

Pissing people off is generally considered a bad idea.

 

So, you wanna try that again?

 

 

If you can see whether I'm singing or not, you've sharper eyes than most, :phones:

Buffy

Pissing people off is not a surprise , quite frankly , convincing people I try , but I'll let it rest .

[Buffy]

Pissing people off is not a surprise , quite frankly , convincing people I try , but I'll let it rest .

 

Convincing people, you should. Pissing people off, you should not. Rest good.

 

I think Yoda said that.

 

 

Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how, :phones:

Buffy

[current]

Convincing people, you should. Pissing people off, you should not. Rest good.

 

I think Yoda said that.

 

 

Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how, :phones:

Buffy

Its not so much convincing people as it is to reason it out .

[Buffy]

Its not so much convincing people as it is to reason it out .

 

Honest, take my advice. "reasoning it out" is not done by attacking and pissing people off either.

 

 

when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because, :phones:

Buffy

[current]

Honest, take my advice. "reasoning it out" is not done by attacking and pissing people off either.

 

 

when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because, :phones:

Buffy

Who have I attacked ?

[Turtle]

Who have I attacked ?

Julia f(z)=z-((z^3-1)/3z^2)

[Buffy]

Who have I attacked ?

 

People who understand the definition of the word "fractals" by telling them the "Only True Fractal" is a living object.

 

People don't like it when you hijack their language, twist it beyond all recognition and then *insist* that they're wrong for disagreeing with you.

 

Whether you want to admit it or not-and it looks like you don't-that is an anti-social act that attacks everyone.

 

It's also obnoxiously self-centered.

 

And it bears no resemblance to what people mean when they say "reasoning it out."

 

Plus, no where in this threads 30-odd posts have you justified *why* living fractals are the "Only True Fractals," meaning that yes, as I said in post #2, you've done nothing here but engage in the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

 

I strongly suggest you go look at the linked Wiki page and consider why I've said this before responding again.

 

 

Everything worthwhile begins life as a mistake, :phones:

Buffy

[current]

Julia f(z)=z-((z^3-1)/3z^2)

= what ?

[current]

No.

Turtle, on 04 Jun 2017 - 02:11 AM, said:

Julia f(z)=z-((z^3-1)/3z^2)

 

No what ?

Edited June 4, 2017 by current