Revelation of Time Compression

[Lychon]

Actually, I have a history of name calling- and not much of one at that- when my opponent refuses to debate properly, regurgitates the same argument or claim at me again and again, refuses to offer proof, or make appeals as to my motives. But no, I feel no need to insult you Lychon. I feel pity. That this is even important enough to pursue, this far, to the point of telling me I am wrong about a definition I have already quoted for you, and attempting to put all sorts of spin on the matter just to try and claim a victory, it's just plain sad. I'm going to begin ignoring anything in this vein- as I should have awhile ago, it is terribly off topic and I think it's scaring off other people- from now on, but I will say this. You are wrong. Insufficient is insufficient in context.

Well, I’m glad that you admit to having a serious psychological problem which manifests itself in the form of verbal abuse (step one is realizing the problem). Now, let’s move on to the pith of your argument, if we can even call it an “argument” at all. You have accused me of being a nitpicker when in fact I have made a quite valid, quite legitimate point in regards to your linguistics. Your most recent post paints a portrait of a most desperate and illogical person, one who strives to secure victory in the face of futility while delving into the nether realms of hypocrisy. To disprove your entire stance, let us first take a gander at the definition of both “parsimonious” and “parsimony,” provided to us by the good people over at Merriam-Webster.

par•si•mo•ni•ous: exhibiting or marked by parsimony; especially : frugal to the point of stinginess

par•si•mo•ny: 1 A : the quality of being careful with money or resources : thrift B : the quality or state of being stingy
2 : economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor

I trust you were able to understand the above definitions. As you may already be aware, “parsimonious” is the adjective that derives from the noun “parsimony.” As I have already stated in my previous posts, “parsimonious,” and even the noun it derives from, apply primarily to fiscal or economical matters, and are used overwhelmingly to denote economic simplicity or economic frugality. In an attempt to mask your blunder, you attempted to portray the use of “parsimonious” as deriving from an alternate definition, one that is predominantly reserved for scientific inquiries into subjects such as cladistics or penology. Given the nature of your original argument, it is evident that you fail to demonstrate any kind of substantial scientific disquisition. On the contrary, you are merely remarking on the qualities of a certain theory, and in essence stating that it is insufficient in proving or securing consideration for its ultimate proposal. Hence, although your use of the word “parsimonious” can be understood to some degree, in the context of the referred application it is quite obscure and unwonted.

Now, if you wish to continue your denial of plain evidence, I will be more than happy to sustain this discussion with you. Per your recent post, however, I fear that you will abandon our quaint little tête-à-tête, so I say in a perhaps premature conclusion that you are most definitively in error here, good sir. You cannot be more wrong: insufficient is a better and wholly sufficient substitute for the rather obscure “parsimonious.”

In regards to your condescending “pity,” I assure you that it is entirely misplaced. If you believe that the expression of sarcastic commiseration provides an adequate defense mechanism against insurmountable attacks of logic and rationale, then by all means, use it. Unfortunately, it only serves to make your own arguments and ideas seem all the more incredible.

Insufficient means 'not sufficient'. This meaning is directly opposite the scientific definition of parsimony- which, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary is an equally valid and contextually appropriate way to use the word- and my intended meaning of the phrase- that the explanation I gave was a workable explanation without any needless fluff, or in other words, it sufficed. Now, you may disagree with my explanation being sufficient, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.

Insufficient is by no means “directly opposite” the scientific definition of parsimony- in fact, it can be quite similar, particularly in the case to which we are referring. Even though I have already established the improper use of the obscure, scientific definition of “parsimonious,” I will indulge you in an elucidation of why insufficient and “parsimonious” are not opposites. When a certain parsimony is considered as a possible solution to a given complication, it is meant (by definition) to be the simplest explanation amongst other possible explanations. However, for any benefit to be derived from said parsimony, the concepts of pragmatism and practicality must inevitably be consulted, especially if the subject matter is scientific in nature. Scientific and philosophical studies over the centuries are testimony that the first or simplest solution to a problem is not sufficient to explain natural phenomena (e.g. Earth being flat, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc…). Hence, the parsimony turns out to be INSUFFICIENT. Therefore, choosing the word “parsimonious” in your original post was not only a blunder when considering the person you were communicating with, but it was also too obscure and unspecific in your contextual application. Next time, instead of being so preoccupied with defending false logic, try doing a little thinking with the old noggin, eh? If I were you, I would edit your original post and replace “parsimonious” with “insufficient.”

You are also wrong about the scientific definition being rarely used. Do a google search on parsimony. You'll find the vast majority of entries that aren't simply dictionary sites are using it in the scientific/ Ockham's Razor sense, not the frugal.

Now then, back to the conspiracy theories.

If you candidly believe that you can use the popularity of sites such as Google or Wikipedia to back up false generalizations, then my good sir, you are in for disastrous disappointment. Not only have I cited the definition of “parsimonious” and “parsimony” by Merriam-Webster up above, but I have also proved your original and improper utilization of these words. You are plainly wrong to state that the primary definition of “parsimonious” is of a scientific nature. Every dictionary I have ever owned or have ever browsed defines “parsimonious” first and foremost in the context of economic frugality, and only thereafter mentions Occam’s Razor. In fact, if you reread the Merriam-Webster definition up above, you’ll see that even the secondary definition, which mentions Occam’s Razor, is in the context of economic simplicity. So please, spare me your dances around the rosebush and start using proper English. If you do not have this ability, then I recommend you take some time out of your day to visit a library.

I look forward to your response.

-LYCHON

P.S.