Was Helen Thomas being disrespectful?

[Regnad Kcin]

Indeed. It was the first time in three years that he called on Helen Thomas. My guess is that we'll have to wait a while for the next time. For the longest serving member of the Whitehouse press corps, why would that be?

Well, I believe a couple years ago she referred to Mr. Bush as the worst president ever. I'll wager that did not endear her to the guy all that much.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's go through this mathetically:
"You can't find one thing not untrue in this?"=
"There is no x such that (you can find x) and (x is not untrue)?"=
"For all x, (you can't find x) or (x is untrue)?"=
"For all x, (you can find x) implies (x is untrue)?"=
"Everything you find is untrue?"

Remember that "for all x, not y" is the same as "not (for some x, y)", not "not (for all x, y)".

There is still something wrong with the construct. I think it is the phrase "you can't find x" within the domain of all x. I think the more appropriate phrase would be "x does not exist", which I think leads to a different result. And because it is bothering me, I think "x is untrue" should be "x is false"

Following your logic:

"You can't find one thing not untrue in this?"
= "There is no x such that (you can find x) and (x is not untrue)
= "There is no x such that (x exists) & (x is not false)"
= "For all x, (x does not exist) | (x is false)"

take one section at a time: "For all x, x does not exist" = false

= "For all x, x is false"


No, assuming your rules of logic are correct, you were right. nevermind.

I'd check versus my logic book, but that's not an easy one to carry around the work place without getting (more) weird looks.

 

[BPSCG]

The pogrom run by the conservative flacks has a stunning similarity to columns and writings seen at other times in history.

Pogrom?

You mean Charles Krauthammer is inciting government-sponsored riots against the Jews?

Who knew?

(You see, jj, this is the kind of superheated rhetoric that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously...)