|
Post by jonbain on Oct 3, 2019 19:32:16 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis:
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 5, 2019 16:12:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 5, 2019 16:13:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2019 19:27:56 GMT
And that is how you silence the critics ladies and gents where first they make arguments, then resort to saying gibberish, then nothing at all.
That is how the malicious mind always defeats itself.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 5, 2019 20:15:26 GMT
What are you talking about? Sorry, but I have been away from books and academies to be able to follow your discourse. For instance, I can mentally go from vectors to tensors, but what is a tensor in a semantic composition? (Can there be such a thing as a non-semantic composition?) And what are the Pythagorean [not Eucledian]] axioms you are referring to? The Squirrels on Each Side of the Aisle Equal the Squirrel of the HippopotamusI never trust the sincerity of posters who claim they don't understand a post. It's an evasion of saying that they don't agree with it but are unable to answer it. In other words, "Sez you!" A tensor stretches the meaning in the direction the academented witch doctors desire it to go; Godwinism does that. Pythagoreanism squares away two different isms, making a series of turns to get back to the reality the master (whichhas been demonstrateds of deceit claim is dependent on their irrelevant factors. I like and understand your bold homonyms, but they are about the Pythagorean Theorem, not about some set of Axioms, and leave the original discourse obscure.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 5, 2019 20:28:23 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. A French composer of Futuristic music composed hyper-dimensional prisms, and so do, in a way, the advocates of extra-terrestrial "gods" to explain our world's megalithic constructions. (Hyper-real, surreal!)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2019 22:42:34 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. A French composer of Futuristic music composed hyper-dimensional prisms, and so do, in a way, the advocates of extra-terrestrial "gods" to explain our world's megalithic constructions. (Hyper-real, surreal!) Those hyper real structures are based around Platonic Forms.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 6, 2019 21:23:28 GMT
The Squirrels on Each Side of the Aisle Equal the Squirrel of the HippopotamusI never trust the sincerity of posters who claim they don't understand a post. It's an evasion of saying that they don't agree with it but are unable to answer it. In other words, "Sez you!" A tensor stretches the meaning in the direction the academented witch doctors desire it to go; Godwinism does that. Pythagoreanism squares away two different isms, making a series of turns to get back to the reality the master (whichhas been demonstrateds of deceit claim is dependent on their irrelevant factors. I like and understand your bold homonyms, but they are about the Pythagorean Theorem, not about some set of Axioms, and leave the original discourse obscure. Professors Are Intellectual Pedophiles Who Mind-Rape Their Gullible and Childish StudentsI don't expect anyone "educated" in school, and especially in Coolie College, to understand how academics use slippery logic to prove that 3 + 4 = 5, "because" 3² + 4² = 5². Just act like the OP is right, being confident that it must be wrong but keeping that out of your analysis, and you will follow it to a new, true, and independent perspective. You will escape from the Ivory Tower dungeon, because, like The Emperor's New Clothes, its walls are all in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2019 21:34:24 GMT
I like and understand your bold homonyms, but they are about the Pythagorean Theorem, not about some set of Axioms, and leave the original discourse obscure. Professors Are Intellectual Pedophiles Who Mind-Rape Their Gullible and Childish StudentsI don't expect anyone "educated" in school, and especially in Coolie College, to understand how academics use slippery logic to prove that 3 + 4 = 5, "because" 3² + 4² = 5². Just act like the OP is right, being confident that it must be wrong but keeping that out of your analysis, and you will follow it to a new, true, and independent perspective. You will escape from the Ivory Tower dungeon, because, like The Emperor's New Clothes, its walls are all in your mind. Yeah..."edubating ourselves to a climax of mindlessness" thread already stated tnis... Actually you can prove 3+4=5 without a contradiction using metacontexts: (3)+((1)+(1)+(2)) = 5(0) Each number and set of numbers an empty context that can equivocate to anything. It can also equal six as well: [(3)+((1)+(1)+(2))] = 6(0) Or any number of other numbers with none of this contradicting arithmetic as arithmetic is used in a recursive form for arithmetic: thus you can various of arithmetic through arithmetic.
|
|
|
Post by ashsummer on Mar 17, 2020 10:27:12 GMT
Key Features of a Synthesis are: * Report information from the sources using different phrases and sentences; * Organize so that readers can immediately see where information from the sources overlap; * Make sense of the sources and help the reader understand them in greater depth. Your synthesis should be organized so that others can understand the sources and evaluate your comprehension of them and their presentation of specific data, themes, etc.
|
|