[MD] Nonrelativizably Used Predicates

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ron:
> Ron: Then why waste both of our time. 

Tuukka:
Well, seems like if you have the last say on nonrelativizably used 
predicates, it will be a misconception. You are perhaps wasting your 
time, but I am not wasting my time by removing misconceptions.

> Tuukka:
> Incorrect. Nonrelativizably used predicates cannot be proven to have, or to not have, any properties. Hence, they may neither (provably) have nor not have the property of being an abstract noun. Nonrelativizability itself is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the way in which a predicate is used.
>
> Ron:
> Right, just like an abstract noun. If you would take the time to research how an abstract noun is used
> in grammar you would see how it relates to nonrelativizably used predicates.

Tuukka:
An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property 
of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff.

>
> Tuukka:
> Yes, they have to be, if they want to understand what I'm saying. Don't you tell me to dumb myself down. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be a pretty sight.
>
> Ron:
> Well then have fun sniffing your own farts, the ability to explain an idea in simple terms is the hallmark
> of a brilliant thinker. Shrouding your ideas in a complex esoteric language seems like putting up a bit
> of a smokescreen to hide the possibility that you really dont know what the heck you are talking about.
>
> If everyone would make an effort to clarify their meaning when expressing ideas it would indeed
> be a pretty sight. It would cut through alot of bullshit.
>
> ..

Tuukka:
And never, ever, solve the Poincare conjecture, the four color theorem, 
and myriads of others. Just sticks and stones and a happy Ron.

-Tuukka