[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Tue Jun 18 11:54:15 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


> > > Sure.  Perhaps I will read it.  But never rely on one
> > source.  Best to get
> > > sources from both sides of any argument, then go from there.
>
> > A misdirection and insertion of a premise that supports it's
> > own conclusion
> > is all you add here.
> > A sly way to say I need to read more and then I will add 2+2
> > and get 4 plus
> > one owed to you?
>
> Actually, never intended to imply that at all.  (I have a habit of saying
> precisely what I mean, and vice versa.  If I mean more, I usually come out
> and say it.  Drives my wife nuts sometimes, but I can't help it.)
>
> This line was reminding the person (that your reading reccomendation was
> directed to) to look for more than source of information when
investigating
> a topic.  And reccommending to those making reccomendations (:P) to offer
> more than one source of information, and that it's even a good idea to
> include the opposition.  Why?  First, to remove the possibility being
> interpreted the way you just described.  Secondly, it shows confidence in
> your own argument; that it will hold clear and true even in the face of
> opposing theory.
>
> Simply a statement concerning gathering and reccommending data.  Nothing
to
> do with your particular reading habits.  I'm sure you've read plenty.
>
> > > I think his point was simply that the value of gold is
> > potentially just as
> > > arbitrary as the value of anything else.  I tend to agree.  (It is
> > > traditionally valuable as currency, but just because it has held up
> > > historically doesn't mean that it can't change.  That's
> > fact number one...
> > > things change.)
>
> > Fact number two:  You will starve if you don't eat.
>
> I do accept that as fact.
>
> > Connect
> > the dots and
> > you will show thyself of sound mind and a man of justice for peace.
>
>
> > > > I tore up your last mail with one sentence responses that you
> > > > ignore.
> > >
> > > Sorry, didn't see it that way.  Honestly, I just went back
> > and read and
> > > didn't see anything like that.  (Though I'm having some
> > email issues here
> > > and maybe I'm not seeing that email yet.)
> >
> > Read the "True causes are causes too" nonsense.
>
>
> > The "Theory is not Fact" misdirection.
> >
> > And ad nauseum for months,  and he has always used the ad
> > hominem as his
> > first response to direct questions with yes or no answers,
> > if he dares
> > answer at all.
> >
> > >
> > > > A
> > > > little too simple for a budding wanna-be attorney-at-law
> > I realize..
> > >
> > > Enough name-calling, get back to arguing your position please.
> >
> > I know it is a slimy profession due to the injustice created by their
> > creative use of similar words for the most part but in this
> > case I say this
> > because he has openly claimed to be exactly that,  this is
> > his previous
> > admission in another thread I assure you.
>
> OK.
>
> I'll even grant that I view the vast majority of lawyers as "slimy".  (But
> not neccessarily every single one.)  I just don't think the statement
added
> much one way or the other.  And as such, it just dilutes the real
argument.
> Like too much ice in the drink.  (Or too much tequila, depending on your
> taste.)
>
> > I don't say this for the joy of being belligerent,  but to
> > highlight his
> > nature.
>
> Which is precisely what I'm getting nitty about.  I couldn't care less
about
> his nature... I just read the writing.  It is harder to convince someone
> (well, me at least) of something when there is extraneous information
(with
> no bearing for me on the real issue) to be sifted through.  Signal to
noise,
> etc.  I want the music, not the tape hiss.
>
>
> > > that long diatribe... fine.
> > I am the one who used the one sentence replies to his oratory
> > in response to
> > my Overpopulation and Communication as the Only Problems premise.
>
> Maybe so, but I was referring to your response to Wil and the link he
> provided.
>
> > I thought he nicely facilitated my argument,  by not
> > understanding me even
> > though I used plain English.
> > It was just his own nature that made his analysis of the
> > subsets of the
> > arbitrary real causes blah blah blah
> > so funny to me,  it was more to the point than I can imagine.
> >
> > Because he was misdirecting in case you hadn't noticed.
>
> Yes, I didn't get much out of that response.  (I did like/agree with the
> last line, though.) But again, I was referring to another post.  Sorry I
> wasn't clear which one it was to begin with.  But that's besides the
point,
> because...
>
> > > People have opinions, and can agree to
> > > disagree.
> >
> > Opinions are fine.
>
> Like I said, I'm not really responding to that one, or wishing to.  My
time
> isn't inexhaustible, and I'm having to pick and choose what to respond to.
> Convienient for me, no?  I'll readily admit that. :)
>
> > In you opinion,  what is two plus two equal to?
> > And, if you cannot add,  is your opinion invalid?
>
> Of course, arithmetic isn't consisted of opinions.  We both know the
answer,
> so why waste time on it.  If one can't add, they simply can't add.  Again,
> no opinions involved.
>
>
> > Subjective viewpoints are always valid,  as they are called
> > feelings and I
> > cannot tell you how to feel nor can I judge you for your
> > feelings,  you are
> > entitled to them, as they are your own.
>
>
> Agreed.  They are always valid, as they are a big part of what makes us
> human.  (Not to say that animals can't have them as well. :)  But as
> "feelings" they can vary wildly from person to person, and from moment to
> moment.  That makes them a little unreliable sometimes, depending on who
you
> are talking too.  Facts don't do that, so it's best to try to keep to them
> during a debate.  Always possible?  Of course not.  But desirable.
>
> But I'm drifting away from the conversation with irrelevencies, and
diluting
> myself.  :)  Let's get back...
>
> > But objective facts are not subject to opinion,
> True
>
> >and you can have an opinion
> Yes
>
> > but if it does not respect reality it is correct regardless of your
> > feelings.
> Whoa.  Did you mean "incorrect"?  You must have, because that would make
> sense.
>
Yes,  I misspoke here

>
> > This is why I carefully choose my arguments and limit them to what is
> > written down in black and white as the Law.
> > As math.
> > As language.
>
> Perhaps, but remember we're still talking about two different posts here.
:)
>
>
> > My culture understood these in former incarnations,  and it is being
> > attacked from every quarter by enemy aliens who cannot add.
>
> That's a pretty huge assumption, that all of these "enemy aliens" cannot
> add.  Mathematics aren't limited by culture or language.  I'd be willing
to
> wager that the majority of them can at least perform rudimentary
arithmatic.
>
> Unless in speaking of arithmatic you are referring again to fiscal policy,
> in which case I'm unsure why you would use the term "culture".
>
> Curious: What do you consider former incarnations of your culture?
>
> > What else would you have me do,  somehow make my computer boot off of
> > interrupt 666 tomorrow due to the new math?
>
> Honestly, I have no idea what you mean.  This statement doesn't stand on
its
> own, nor do I see continuity with the previous sentence to give it
context.
> You may have skipped a dot. :)

Interrupt 13 is the agreed protocol,  and the computer is not emotionally
attached to it, it just knows that at is where to access the hard drive.

You can argue all day but it won't affect the conputer. I thought this was
plainly obvious and judicious use of analogy in terms a logical geek mind
can readily grasp.


>
> > It doesn't care if I can't add,  thusly I must face reality
> > to have an mbr
> > it can boot from today as well as tomorrow.
> > Unfortunately for me,  my current PC's can't do the "new math".
>
> LOL!  Though it does connect well with this.  Funny, but not sure where it
> fits.

That's because I haven't connected the dots for you,  I leave that to you.
I do enjoy debate with you, because you are respecting the rules of the game
well.
Thanks.


jH








More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list