Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 03:40

[for a second I thought your trolling had stopped.]

* mdj <dfd488d2-f073-4e26-8309-d4c2a37b2e7a(a)12g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:21:32 -0800 (PST):

| 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.

Wrong. You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the
agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker
about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to
correct and I established my intention was to make a point. Your
intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of bickering,
and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous remarks about
meanings of words. Pick a new word each time and use english language to
construct a prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous
claim[1] that begs to be rebutted

| 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.

This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
justifiable. Screw any points. Start the flame fest!

Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of
the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective
and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

| 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.

My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to
be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag
me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret,

--
Madhu
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 03:46

* mdj <599cd5bd-6d58-4b55-94af-bd4c1fe81683(a)u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:30:44 -0800 (PST):

| 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.

And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
convey the meanings I wanted to convey?

Please.


|> 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 told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
your subjective interpretation of words.

you continue to trollbait me on this issue.

|> |> | 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.

Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
Please to be continuing.

|> | <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.

[needless to state]
my original correction to that post stands

--
Madhu
From: Hanne Gudiksen on 17 Nov 2009 08:29
On Nov 17, 6:40 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> | 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.
>
> Wrong.  You are ALL about bickering. The outcome is determined by the
> agenda you set when you made your first post. I was going to bicker
> about `interesting' in your first post, which I immediately sought to
> correct and I established my intention was to make a point.  

That would be true, were I the only intelligent agent acting on
this... hang on a second ...

> Your
> intention however is to show I was doing it from a point of bickering,
> and I have refrained, you troll me by making perposterous remarks about
> meanings of words.

Excuse me, but I believe you are the one who was claiming that your
point was valid because your use of the terms 'interesting' and
'pathological' had valid (and unambiguous) mathematical definitions.

I see that you are at least smart enough to realise you lost that
battle, hence this puffery and smokery about other words.

Not much of a segue is it, really ?

> Pick a new word each time and use english language to
> construct a prime facie wrong argument that you use as a preposterous
> claim[1] that begs to be rebutted

Were I making any preposterous claims I've no doubt they'd be rebutted
by now.

> | 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.
>
> This was the precisely basis of your trolling. You can always find a
> subjective perspective in which your prime facie argument is
> justifiable.  Screw any points.  Start the flame fest!

Nonsense.

> Or do you now you want to us to bicker pathologically on the meaning of
> the word `subjective, instead of `interesting', and how it is subjective
> and I have misused it while you supply brilliant flawless reasoning?

Oh now you're just being silly. Bicker over the meaning of subjective?
Next you'll be accusing me of bickering over the definition of bicker.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that sunshine.

> | 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.
>
> My intent is not to bicker about the word `interesting' which appears to
> be your sole area of competence, and which you repeatedly wish to drag
> me into, but to point out a false claim made by Ron Garret,

By misappropriating the word interesting, and then when challenged,
claim you possess some high and mighty objective definition of it.
This is bollocks. Haven't you been paying attention ?

Matt
From: Hanne Gudiksen on 17 Nov 2009 08:35
On Nov 17, 6:46 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
> * mdj <599cd5bd-6d58-4b55-94af-bd4c1fe81...(a)u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:30:44 -0800 (PST):
>
> | 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.
>
> And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
> convey the meanings I wanted to convey?

No no no. Read before commenting. I am merely asking you to establish
your own intent.

> I told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
> your subjective interpretation of words.

And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
of words that only apparently you posess.

Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
trying to be nice.

> | 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.
>
> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
> Please to be continuing.

And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
confronting the actual point I'm making.

You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.

Hey look! Three of a kind :-)
From: Madhu on 17 Nov 2009 08:43

* Hanne Gudiksen <275e083a-33db-4edd-b544-21e98204c322(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:35:21 -0800 (PST):

|> |
|> |> | 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.
|>
|> And yet you will establish my intent in using words as I choose to
|> convey the meanings I wanted to convey?
|
| No no no. Read before commenting. I am merely asking you to establish
| your own intent.

I Stated it in my reply to your first post and many times since. You
wont accept it.

Again Stated in the next line:

|> I told you in my first response I am not interested in bickering on the
|> your subjective interpretation of words.
|
| And I call bullshit. Your entire statement is based upon definitions
| of words that only apparently you posess.

You took exception because you were not familiar with the usage. I am
not here to educate you about the usage, why dont you just excuse
yourself from the target audience?


| Far more parsimonious to say you're simply full of it, but I was
| trying to be nice.
|
|> | 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.
|>
|> Yes, Most of what have been doing is nothing but bicker about your
|> subjective definitions as per the agenda you set out, because you can
|> construct flawless arguments based on your subjective definitions.
|> Please to be continuing.
|
| And in response you don't construct an argument. You just fling about
| words like 'troll', 'jerk' and 'bickerer', and try to avoid actually
| confronting the actual point I'm making.

No I wont construct an argument because I am not interested in the
pathological bickering behaviour you wish to indulge in were I to
construct an argument --- note I have not responded to the arguments you
gave. Maybe you should concede that I appreciate that words have
subjective usages in specific contexts.

When something is not clear, or misleading it is best to clarify the
intent of the speaker. I've made my intent clear. What is your problem
after that?

Your problem is I'm not falling for your trolling and indulging you in
the pathological bickering you solicit in every post.

| You're a charlatan. A fraud. A liar.
|
| Hey look! Three of a kind :-)

Spare the insults.

--
Madhu
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1