Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 01:36
On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

<<broken record snipped>>

> |> Yes, briefly, I was paraphrasing a sentence of yours: See upthread
> |>
> |> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/524b3e366e5c1943>
> |
> | Obviously you don't understand what paraphrasing means. Let me give
> | you an example of a correct way to paraphrase my reasoning:
> |
> | "Common Lisp (like mathematics) is just a language. As such, it has no
> | perspective of its own."
>
> Why do you offer this?  Does this  
> 1) demonstrate you understand what parapharsing means?
> 2) demonstrate I do not undestand what parapharsing means?

Yes, to 1) and 2). As to why I offered it:

> Stop wasting my time, jerk!

You wasted your own time by accusing me of something and using
fraudulent evidence. It should be obvious to you by now you can't get
away with that, but alas it's not.

You owe me an apology. That's two.

> |> What makes it entertaining, I hope is that in attempting to
> |> caricature my position you are accurately characterizing your own
> |
> | What's entertaining? It's observed that you're misusing language, then
> | in an attempt to rebuke or diffuse the observation you misuse yet
> | another word.
>
> I did not proof read it so it has some errors, sorry.  

A reinterpretation of something that doesn't mean the same thing isn't
'some errors'. It *is* an error.

> Why do you think
> I do not know what `paraphrasing means' or I misused it?

Because you did misuse it, demonstrating either your lack of
understanding or (more likely) your dishonesty and reliance on
obscurantism.

Pick one
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 01:51

* mdj <7e4a14c2-9b76-4d61-a3e8-64319a6858c3(a)m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:30:45 -0800 (PST):

| << irrelevant reference snipped >>

Here is the reference again in case you missed it: you ``return each
remark with a machine gun burst of no less than than than four
preposterous remarks each just screaming for rebuttal'' (in Ken Tilton's
words observed of Garret's tactics in
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f965378a4e2d4abe> )

Its relevant in that you are responding to each of my remarks asking for
material already supplied, ignoring it

|> You can do this as much as you want.  I have explained my simple
|> position.  There is no contradiction or dishonesty or bluff on my part,
|> and there is no need to answer you once your intention has been made
|> clear.
|
| I can only assume then that you continue to reply because you're
| curious what my intentions are ?

Not anymore. I am just going to mark your perposterous statements that
you are inviting me to respond, after citing the URL.

I stopped playing after your 3rd post Matt


|> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
|> | facile,
|>
|> After you accepted whay I said. You can make whatever you want of my
|> comments, since your intent is to parody me and accuse me of the same
|> things I've been accusing Gat, except you make a mockery of it while I'm
|> doing it in all honesty.
|
| Well, one of the ways I'm achieving my intent is by mocking you, yes.
|
| Your honesty however is at the very heart of this supposed 'debate'

Why? because you made some accusations I didnt bother to justify? Can
it be about your intentions in continuing to post?

|> |> | In a previous post I challenged your accepted usage and showed it to
|> |> | be plainly wrong. But go on then, sit in denial land and pretend I
|> |> | didn't do that.
|> |>
|> |> In your previous post you cited a certain usage of `pathological' in
|> |> biology.  Do you think that shows that the established usage in
|> |> mathematics for so many centuries has been wrong?  I have explained I
|> |> was using it in the sense used in mathematics.  It must be clear I was
|> |> not using it in a biological sense.  Showing one perspective you not
|> |> invalidated my usage or the perspectiv.
|> |
|> | I presented *both* the biological and mathematical usages of
|> | 'pathological'. I did the for three reasons: one, to demonstrate my
|> | understanding of both by highlighting the differences. two, to show
|> | that your own usage of it is incorrect. three, to illustrate that you
|> | cannot hope to understand the usage of it in mathematics without an
|> | understanding of the words origins.
|> |
|> | (mathematical) pathological phenomena could (IMO) be better described
|> | as "counter-intuitive" and this I believe is a very important point,
|>
|> Nonsense. And all that below fails on this nonsense.
|
| Really? How so?

|> If you accepted my explanation and my intent is clear, you are just
|> adding bullshit to troll.
|
| Again, correlation does not imply causation.
|
| 1. I do not accept your explanation, only your conclusion
| 2. Because of that your intent is not clear
| 3. Please clarify

I'm not playing Matt. You just respond to every sentence shooting holes
based on language. For a `debate' now it just remains to establish
intentions. My intention was to make a point.

It has been made. our intention is to troll by making preposterous
claims

Can you bring someone else to play now?

|> | since it means it is simply a subjective value judgement driven by
|> | the knowledge and experience levels of the person making the
|> | claim. Like many borrowed terms, it suffers from a lack of clarity
|> | and when used by an undisciplined party their actual intent can be
|> | better described by the original definition.
|>
|> I used it in a precise logically verifiable sense I've clarified
|> later. You can choose not to understand it and make excuses for your
|> ignorance etc. Why waste time?  just so I can accuse you of
|> misrepresenting, just like I accused Gat of misrepresenting things to
|> make a point?
|
| Accuse me of misrepresentation if you wish. I however have your posts
| in this thread as evidence when I make the counter accusation.

Yeah, I'm glad for that

--
Madhu

From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 02:23


* mdj <3e3c969b-1c47-4850-a6d1-b5d0b22b9711(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:36:41 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
|
| <<broken record snipped>>

You havent snipped your own repetition the same <broken record> pattern
yourself: That pattern where you ``return each remark with a machine gun
burst of no less than than than four preposterous remarks each just
screaming for rebuttal'' Not that I'm playing, but I really think that
characterization suits your activity in comp.lang.lisp

|> |> Yes, briefly, I was paraphrasing a sentence of yours: See upthread
|> |>
|> |> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/524b3e366e5c1943>
|> |
|> | Obviously you don't understand what paraphrasing means. Let me give
|> | you an example of a correct way to paraphrase my reasoning:
|> |
|> | "Common Lisp (like mathematics) is just a language. As such, it has no
|> | perspective of its own."
|>
|> Why do you offer this?  Does this  
|> 1) demonstrate you understand what parapharsing means?
|> 2) demonstrate I do not undestand what parapharsing means?
|
| Yes, to 1) and 2). As to why I offered it:

I claim you have done neither, --- I have my post upthread and your
original sentence to back up my claim as evidence.

|> Stop wasting my time, jerk!
|
| You wasted your own time by accusing me of something and using
| fraudulent evidence. It should be obvious to you by now you can't get
| away with that, but alas it's not.

Wrong. I accuse you of trolling me for the purpose of mocking me. The
`fradulent evidence' is a new preposterous claim, that I'll pass

My intent from the start was to point out a false claim made by Ron
Garret. You apparently accepted it, I'm done when you stop trolling.


| You owe me an apology. That's two.
|
|> |> What makes it entertaining, I hope is that in attempting to
|> |> caricature my position you are accurately characterizing your own
|> |
|> | What's entertaining? It's observed that you're misusing language, then
|> | in an attempt to rebuke or diffuse the observation you misuse yet
|> | another word.
|>
|> I did not proof read it so it has some errors, sorry.  
|
| A reinterpretation of something that doesn't mean the same thing isn't
| 'some errors'. It *is* an error.

Shall we now pathologically bicker on the meaning of the word `error'
and how the `error' you are referring to is not the `error' I am
referring to and how I have misused the word error to mislead, so you
can construct brilliant logical proofs that I have to refute?

Jerk.


|> Why do you think I do not know what `paraphrasing means' or I misused
|> it?

| Because you did misuse it, demonstrating either your lack of
| understanding or (more likely) your dishonesty and reliance on
| obscurantism. Pick one

Your phrasing of the question in an either-or form, excludes the answer
that I have not misused it. Now you want to us to bicker pathologically
on the meaning of the word `parapharsing', instead of `interesting' like
you started of with, and how it is subjective and construct brilliant
dialectical arguments to support your point?

Lets see what you come up with. I'm not playing. Really.

--
Madhu
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 02:30
On Nov 17, 5:03 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> | Is that irony? ;-)
>
> No, its establishment of your intent in "engaging me" in this thread.

I'll establish my own intent thank you very much.

> What is your interest in lisp anyway?

Many and varied. Principally as an ideal vehicle to explore compiler
optimisation techniques.

> |> |> If my point was not already clear, I am not interested in engaging
> |> |> in dialectic debate.  I assumed you made a misunderstanding and
> |> |> made an honest attempt to correct it.  But it is clear you are not
> |> |> interested in accepting what I said, and instead lay accusation
> |> |> upon accusation of false claim on false claim, wronga assumption
> |> |> upon wrong assumption with the intent that I should respond to
> |> |> each of those.
> |> |
> |> | I have made only a smaller number of claims, that I have framed a
> |> | variety of ways in a hope that I would somehow reach you.
> |>
> |> I have made exactly 1 point in the post you took exception to.  I am
> |> not interested in any other point.  All your claims are unrelated to
> |> the validity of the point I made, which you have not countered except
> |> by untenable accusations and (mis)characterizations, which are
> |> baseless and not worth wasting time to respond.
> |
> | I'm sorry, but my claims seem quite tenable to me.
>
> Now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word
> `tenable', instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective and I have
> misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

Not at all! I'm happy to stick with interesting. I will note for the
record however that your usage of pathological in this context shows a
marked improvement. Bravo.

> |> | I also accept what you said. I do however think your comments are
> |> | facile, and that any interesting qualities they might have are
> |> | unverifiable due to your refusal to disclose them.
> |>
> |> I have asked you to ignore all that and focus on the issue at hand,
> |> since it does not affect my point.  There are no interesting qualities.
> |> I've said it. Why do you keep pretending there are "interesting
> |> qualities" anywhere?
> |
> | Because you don't have the faintest idea what "interesting quality"
> | actually means.
>
> Not in any sense you seem you use it at least.  Or do you now want to
> indulge in pathological bickering on the meaning `interesting quality'
> and argue brilliantly and flawlessly how I've misused it to support my
> ego?

Actually my intent was to show how you misused it to make your point.
I believe I've made that point, but if you disagree post again! I've
got a few rounds left in me yet.

> | <snip>
> |
> |> Again you draw this conclusion/accusation not from anything I've
> |> demonstrated but gratuitious verbiage and impeccable reasoning that you
> |> attribute and supply.
> |
> | Since you feel that my reasoning is impeccable, there's no reason for
> | this conversation to continue. Thanks for playing, I'm glad you
> | learned something.
>
> Impeccable reasoning based on false misleading assumptions is the game
> you are playing Matt, and its common here, along with making
> preposterous conclusions that beg to be corrected.  I'd prefer to avoid
> the trollbait at least I'm only saying I'm not interested in correcting
> your mistakes made for debate's-sake.  At best I can mark them as such.

My original post stands.

Matt

From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 03:21
On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> Shall we now pathologically bicker on the meaning of the word `error'
> and how the `error' you are referring to is not the `error' I am
> referring to and how I have misused the word error to mislead, so you
> can construct brilliant logical proofs that I have to refute?

Let's stick to interesting.

> Jerk.

Now look here sonny. Just calm down and take a deep breath and think.
Feeling better? Good. Now consider this:

If you consider that your own use of language is 'perfectly logical'
and insist upon using that presumption as a means to support your
point, is that:

a) A prime example of 'bickering' over language
b) A recipe for creating more 'bickering' over language
c) Exactly what you did

I have no desire to 'bicker'. I simply wish to point out that your
pattern of behaviour will lead to exactly this outcome, over and over
again.

All you have to do to avoid it is use the technique of "paraphrasing"
your meaning in a way that contextualises it. If you attempt to be too
succinct you'll become overly reliant on your own subjective
definitions of terms that frankly, are subjective.

Now, why don't you give us *your* definition of the word
'interesting'. I for one am quite 'interested' to know what it is
because for the life of me I cannot find a definition that would make
your usage of it make sense.

Matt
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1