LibraryThing Reviews on a Mac

DiscussãoMac Users at LibraryThing

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

LibraryThing Reviews on a Mac

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1pomonomo2003
Nov 6, 2006, 10:26am

Hi, I have an Intel Imac (OSX, 10.4.8) and I am using the latest Safari and Firefox browsers. I write very long, perhaps overly long, reviews. When I go to save them, in either browser, I get '...saving' and it hangs there forever. If I refresh, even a half hour later, I find nothing was saved.

Tim thinks this is a user side problem. He said, over on the Blog the other day:

***pomonomo2003: Wow. I wish the site weren't down now, or I'd check out your reviews. Do your reviews get rejected somehow. Although they may not "look" their they're fitting, the box should accomodate a VERY large amount of text. I think it's browser dependent—maybe 32k? Anyway, on the database end you could drop off Moby Dick. Is it just a visual thing or are you finding problems posting long reviews?***

So it looks like the LT database would accept anything. Has anyone else seen a problem like this? If anyone here has any idea what's up I would greatly appreciate the help, thanks!

Joe

2psiloiordinary
Editado: Nov 7, 2006, 5:37pm

Hi Joe,

I also have an Imac Intel Duo Core and use 10.4.8 and Safari.

I haven't noticed any browsing issues but my few reviews are very sparse fare compared to your gargantuan musings.

How long a review is it that you are having trouble with? I will try and replicate the situation on my machine.

Cheers,

3pomonomo2003
Nov 7, 2006, 8:44pm

My longest review was 20K, the next size is 12k. I use the 'text edit' utility (rich text format) to compose and copy it from there into LT using either the Firefox or Safari browser. These reviews did get up on the Amazon site using the same hardware and software...

Thanks for the help,

Joe

4psiloiordinary
Nov 8, 2006, 10:03am

Could you simply cut and paste the finished text into the text box on LT?

5pomonomo2003
Nov 8, 2006, 10:45am

Yes, I compose the review in the 'text edit' utility then I copy and paste into the review text box on LT. I press 'save' and that is when I get the endless 'saving' message. Upon refreshing the screen I find that nothing has been saved. I have waited as long as an hour (Shower, breakfast) before refreshing so the problem is not that I don't wait long enough. Also, the problem is not my ISP; I upload the same files to Amazon without a problem.

Joe

6psiloiordinary
Nov 8, 2006, 1:51pm

test 20k plus message;
dfkgadkfgadgadlfjgadlkgadlkjgadlkfjgadfkljgadfkjgadflgjkadfgCreationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.

7psiloiordinary
Editado: Nov 8, 2006, 1:55pm

This worked in a little under 2 seconds - copied from text edit and pasted into safari.

I guess this is pointing at something else on your machine/connection.

How about having activity monitor running while you do it?

Re reading your last message again - I didn't get any kind of saving message at all - what sort of speed connection are you on?

8pomonomo2003
Nov 8, 2006, 2:23pm

test 20k plus message;
dfkgadkfgadgadlfjgadlkgadlkjgadlkfjgadfkljgadfkjgadflgjkadfgCreationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.

9pomonomo2003
Nov 8, 2006, 2:36pm

Okay, how's that for bizarre? I copied your post (message 6) and tried to post it as a review to a book. It failed. Actually it still shows 'Saving...' (I have opened another tab in the Safari browser for another instance of LibraryThing.) Anyway, I first posted your message to this group/topic (message 8) which, as you can see, succeeded, so it clearly is NOT browser related. It also posted here to the group in a second or two. This is really very strange... But I thank you for taking the time to debug this with me. One last request, can you copy your post (message 6) and save it as a review to any of your books? If it should save you could always delete it later.

Joe

10psiloiordinary
Nov 9, 2006, 3:39am

Hi Joe,

Just did that for the first book in my library and it worked just as quickly as it did here.

Mystery.

Apart form knowing I like Mac's I'm no technical bod so I'm struggling to suggest anything else.

What does activity monitor show when you try to do this?

11pomonomo2003
Nov 9, 2006, 8:20am

test 20k plus message;
dfkgadkfgadgadlfjgadlkgadlkjgadlkfjgadfkljgadfkjgadflgjkadfgCreationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.
Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case.

Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers.

Psycho-kinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from sceptic observers.

Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge.

The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound or logically “valid”.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true.

An invalid argument can be recognised by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Consider the following example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample.

If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. But not all valid arguments are sound.

Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is difficult; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. In other words you might have to look into it.

If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

I have covered the most commonly seen logical fallacies on my “The Guide to Thinking Straight”.

12pomonomo2003
Nov 9, 2006, 8:27am

Ok. I had Activity Monitor open and posted to the forum (above) and then to the review field of a book - which failed as before. Activity Monitor behaved the same, to my inexpert eyes, in both cases. Very, very strange. Thank you for your time.

Joe

13pomonomo2003
Dez 6, 2006, 7:44pm

For future reference I want to note that Chris here at librarything has fixed this problem. Now I can post long reviews. Sorry, but I do not know what the details of the fix are.

Joe

14avaland
Abr 29, 2007, 8:51pm

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

15VictoriaPL
Jun 10, 2007, 5:14pm

Just yesterday I wrote my first review for LT, yes, I'm a newbie. It wasn't a long review at all but LT would not upload it. Actually gave me a error msg. I have an iBook and use Firefox. On a whim, I switched over to Safari and it uploaded just fine. Anyone else have problems with Firefox?

16barney67
Jun 20, 2007, 5:43pm

I find Safari to be faster than Firefox. You might also try Opera, which gives Safari a run for its money.