|
El
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
December 29, 2013, 05:12:27 PM |
|
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference. I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.
For true definition, you have to go back in time. To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.
|
|
|
|
bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
|
|
December 29, 2013, 05:17:59 PM |
|
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference. I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.
For true definition, you have to go back in time. To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.
I hate when people say anyone can edit Wikipedia. It's completely false. Try it, your changes will be instantly reverted even if correct.idiots. Ps obfuscate
|
|
|
|
El
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
December 29, 2013, 05:26:54 PM |
|
Ok, well...that's probably why the Supreme Court doesn't use WIKI for Case Law And when they do, it's time to sell the farm.
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3486
Merit: 4847
|
|
December 29, 2013, 05:42:38 PM |
|
No dude, wiki obviscates true definition, it should NOT be your reference. I thought peeps knew that about Wiki? It's additional data to be sure, but anyone can put what ever in there....lol....and a thousand Frenchmen COULD be wrong.
For true definition, you have to go back in time. To HARD PRINT. The meanings get simpler, and less occulted.
And what of Britannica and dictionary.reference.com? Are you simply choosing to ignore the fact that the definition they present demonstrates that you are using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly? If I find a print edition of a dictionary that also demonstrates that you are using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly, will you admit that you made an error?
|
|
|
|
El
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
December 29, 2013, 05:55:45 PM |
|
Yes you are correct. Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant. But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar. Wiki can suck it.
Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition? Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.
yes i stand corrected! All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree?
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3486
Merit: 4847
|
|
December 29, 2013, 06:08:45 PM |
|
Yes you are correct. Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant. But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar. Wiki can suck it.
Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition? Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.
yes i stand corrected! All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree? Certainly, digital info can be altered, although there are reliable sources of digital information. Regardless, it seems we are now all on the same page. It doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question". Now that we've gotten past that, we can work on answering the question that has been raised. . . Within U.S. case law, bitcoin is already considered "a money". I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before a federal court determines that it is also "a currency".
|
|
|
|
sublime5447
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 29, 2013, 07:26:43 PM |
|
Yes you are correct. Had I not provided proof of my assumption, that bitcoins are in fact NOT currency, as legally defined, I would have committed a fallacy of begging the question--leading to circular logic. With the addition of a second begging, clearly redundant. But I do not agree that " raising the question" is an appropriate replacement regarding proper grammar. Wiki can suck it.
Are we clear that bitcoins cannot be considered "currency" as currency is defined as paper tradable from hand to hand, per Blacks definition? Should You, the human, find yourself in a legal issue using bitcoins--- this will of course, be a part of the Laws grammar.
yes i stand corrected! All digital dictionaries should be considered supplementary as all digital info can be altered. do you agree? Certainly, digital info can be altered, although there are reliable sources of digital information. Regardless, it seems we are now all on the same page. It doesn't "beg the question", it "raises the question". Now that we've gotten past that, we can work on answering the question that has been raised. . . Within U.S. case law, bitcoin is already considered "a money". I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before a federal court determines that it is also "a currency".If the government says it it must be true. Bitcoin is not money or currency and is not likely to become either. It is a digital collectible. It is the digital equivalent of trading cards.
|
|
|
|
|