Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: mdj on 16 Nov 2009 00:26
On Nov 16, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
> You are only interested in bickering about the word `interesting' which
> I have already explained. See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6d08e8c6dbc43009>

Nonsense. My point was to highlight that *your* misuse of language and/
or hiding your own viewpoint behind authoritarian positions is the
*cause* of bickering about terminology. I have not at any stage
insisted that my usage of a term be considered objective because of
its association with a particular field of study. In any case, the
words in question here have specialist definitions in a variety of
philosophical disciplines and to insist that the definition you choose
to elevate to highest personal import does not reveal the point you
want to make, it only reveals your prejudice, and only then after you
are challenged. Do you see the problem here?

> |> Mockery aside, I am willing to justify them, and I pointed you to an
> |> initial justification. Also I have not made the `grammatically
> |> flawed construct' with any intent of dishonesty, it was made in
> |> response to a Garret post. Garret had earlier tried to pass off
> |> trivial facts as `trivial CL mechanisms' as `interesting',
> |
> | This has nothing to do with what 'Garret' does or doesn't, this is
> | about you, unless you're prepared to concede that your dislike for
> | some individuals compromises your objectivity and makes you post
> | irrational comments ?
>
> Wrong. You have taken me out of context. I was responding to a Garret
> post, responding to a false claim made by Garret, about a particular
> usage of symbol macros, which was indeed an exceptional case
> (pathological) and was especially pedagogical. There is nothing
> irrational or dishonest in this.

Again, nonsense. I specifically drew attention to your misuse of
language in hiding your point behind an unimpeachable authority. That
is both dishonest and logically vacuous (argumentum ad verecundium),
and to continue to argue about it after you've already admitted to the
error is irrational.

> |> | This is of course not only intellectually lazy, but ethically
> |> | bankrupt.
> |>
> |> This is just your accusation. The paradigm I was following in stating
> |> `interesting' is common in mathematics. Trivial results are not
> |> interesting. They are pathological.
> |
> | Isolating my observation from its context to make it look like an
> | accusation only strengthens my position. It shows that you're
> | dishonest.
>
> I am not isolating anything. You removed the context yourself. Add the
> context. Where am I dishonest?

| No, I was pointing out through the use of irony that you were hiding
| your own view of what is '(dis)interesting' behind the grammatically
| flawed construct "but is not interesting to CL". I presume that this
| obviously authoritarian (and borderline Orwellian) choice of words
| comes from a desire to have your opinions appear to have greater
| veracity that those of others without going to the bother of
| justifying them.

Context re-inserted. My 'accusation' was an inference from the above
observation. You deliberately isolated it, and then in the post I'm
replying to removed it entirely in order to make it appear that my
words were nothing but an ad hominem attack. *That* is dishonest.

> | Again you're appealing to another authority, in this case
> | mathematics. Perhaps if you'd invoked 'mathematicians' it would appear
> | less vacuous, but in either case you're hiding your position behind
> | apparent authorities and not having the courage to stand behind it
> | yourself.
>
> Wrong. I am citing established usage of the words `pathological' and
> `not interesting' in mathematics. Look them up. These are not
> prejudiced in mathematics, they obviously are prejudiced in your own
> language, which is why you think you have problems with what I said.
> This misidentification was what Garret was appealing to. This was not
> my intent when I used the words, as I've explained too many times.

Not prejudiced? Surely you jest. The word 'pathological' (I'll spare
you the translation) is far less prejudiced in the biology/medicine
domains where the *harm* caused by a phenomena is often recognised
before the phenomena that causes it. Mathematics on the other hand is
replete with examples of phenomena once considered to be pathological
only to have the label revoked once general theories that explained
them were developed.

It's important to recognise that in mathematics you can 'prove' (in
the mathematical sense) a phenomena is *not* pathological, but any
statement that declares that *is* is subjective by definition. In
terms of the statements that *you* make, this means your statements
are just *your* opinion, and your attempts to label them objective by
hiding them behind authorities is dishonest and logically fallacious.

> You fell for Garret's line.

Are we sure about that? :-)

> |> | And then again above, you attempt it again, by placing your own
> |> | viewpoint behind a "position of what is interesting from a CL point of
> |> | view". Your position of course is justifiable
> |>
> |> So you are not disagreeing with my position or you accept my
> |> justification.
> |
> | And?
>
> So what are you objecting to? Your intent is just to insult me without
> accepting facts.

I think this post makes it clear what I am objecting to. I wonder what
contorted lengths you will go to in order to obscure my objection this
time?

I am not attempting to insult you Sir, you are bringing the insult
upon yourself.

> |> | as your later attempt to explain it shows, but only if you are
> |> | prepared to actually own it by referring to it as *yours* rather than
> |> | applying an obscurantist tactic of attributing it to some
> |> | unimpeachable authority, in this case "the CL perspective".
> |>
> |> Yes, But I believe there is a point of view over and above my own, under
> |> which the usage is justifiable. I have outlined the reasons of my
> |> belief in that model in that message. I am stating the position, so it
> |> its my perspective, but I am making and justifying the position in a
> |> metamodel of something (CL) that necessarily exists outside my
> |> perception.
> |
> | Belief in a point of view over and above your own, which somehow you
> | are capable of arguing? This is a faith based argument best left to
> | theologians. Attempting to use this as a justification makes your
> | argument appear mystical, and you yourself foolish.
>
> I have provided a framework for you to see something you have not
> understood yet.

Oh, please. You don't have anywhere near the credibility required to
pull off such pedagogical sophistry. You'll get far more respect if
you at least *try* to construct a dialectical argument. The admission
of ones own ignorance is the essence of philosophy.

<snip>

> | Beyond the conspiracy theories and misuse of philosophical terms in
> | this mostly hocum argument, you've missed the obvious point that this
> | 'loophole' applies to your own point of view just as much as it does
> | to everyone else. As a result, honest ethical argument begins with
> | that concession. Believing you're exempt from this is not only
> | arrogant but delusional, since there is no basis whatsoever for
> | thinking this exception should be applied to you.
>
> You are merely using language. I have already made the concession. You
> are just stating false things in characterising my position.

Merely using language? Would you prefer I painted you a picture
instead? I will take this nonsensical response to mean that you
concede.

> |> |> | More seriously, I can only a assume that *you* don't find this
> |> |> | interesting. This is a position you can convey implicitly by saying
> |> |> | nothing at all, which avoids the (also pathological) bickering that
> |> |> | will ensue from attempting to hold an unsupportable position.
> |>
> |> Saying nothing at all would have helped. But Ron's "point" was invalid
> |> from several perspectives I can identify with. I am not interested
> |> bickering on the usage of the word `interesting' as you have been lead
> |> to believe, or as you seem to imply.
> |
> | Where is the evidence to support that assertion? Or are you just
> | attempting humour ?
>
> My responses to Thingstad and responses your mockery should be evidence
> enough that I have clarified my point, and it is not about the word
> `interesting'. Can you catch up and please move on?
>
> |> |> | My own perspective is this: The ability to easily create new language
> |> |> | semantics that allow me to more succinctly solve problems is exactly
> |> |> | *why* I find CL interesting. Somehow I doubt I'm alone here.
> |> |>
> |> |> I find CL interesting for that reason too.
> |> |
> |> | An ironic statement considering the position you're currently
> |> | espousing.
> |>
> |> Not at all. I do not know why you think that.
> |
> | Because the topic under discussion fits that model of 'interesting' !
>
> No. You demonstrate after all this that you still want to misunderstood
> my point entirely. My response to Garret was not about what you or I
> find interesting, I used the word in a technical sense which is common
> in mathematics.

I understand that it's possible to create "scheme like" structures
using CL since it has greater expressive power. I also understand your
pathological desire to continually point this out, and find it
uninteresting.

I do *not* however possess the behavior of continually mistaking my
own views on what I consider pathological as some form of "proof by
contradiction" theorem.

<snip>

> I am indeed aware how they manifest in my psyche. A lot of the scheme
> vs lisp debates can also be explained on the biocultural paradigm, and
> especially your inability to see the point I'm making

You seem to be unaware of how your appeals to authority falsify your
own arguments, force you to conspiratorialise other peoples
objections, and once you believe you've created enough smoke simply
restate your original position with an appeal to a slightly different
authority. You never make the effort to make an argument stand on its
own merits, and subsequently reveal that your arguments are nothing
more than weakly held prejudices.

It's merely an elaborate form of "circulus in probando", but I would
prefer to call it "petitio principii". Best not to call it "begging
the question" since that's open to colloquial ambiguity. May I suggest
that in future you consider using terms that actually convey your
meaning, rather than terms you *think* are sufficient to hide your
prejudice, or as you previously conceded, simply shut up when you have
nothing 'interesting' to say.

Matt
From: Madhu on 16 Nov 2009 00:42


* mdj <191c5ec7-6cfd-4f41-813c-d55ba605c372(a)w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:26:04 -0800 (PST):

| On Nov 16, 12:59 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:
|> You are only interested in bickering about the word `interesting' which
|> I have already explained. See
|> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6d08e8c6dbc43009>
|
| Nonsense. My point was to highlight that *your* misuse of language and/
| or hiding your own viewpoint behind authoritarian positions is the
| *cause* of bickering about terminology. I have not at any stage
| insisted that my usage of a term be considered objective because of
| its association with a particular field of study. In any case, the
| words in question here have specialist definitions in a variety of
| philosophical disciplines and to insist that the definition you choose
| to elevate to highest personal import does not reveal the point you

I am not doing this. Youre just trolling me now. If you have any
objections follow up on that thread where I explained it stating what
there is you are objecting to.

This thread has no contribution except your insults.


| want to make, it only reveals your prejudice, and only then after you
| are challenged. Do you see the problem here?

| Again, nonsense. I specifically drew attention to your misuse of
| language in hiding your point behind an unimpeachable authority. That
| is both dishonest and logically vacuous (argumentum ad verecundium),

No I am doing no such thing. I explained my position you continue to
misunderstand and state your incorrect postition. If you disagree you
should say.

| and to continue to argue about it after you've already admitted to the
| error is irrational.

I am responding to your baseless pointless posts. Stop trolling me if
you have nothing to add.

|> I am not isolating anything. You removed the context yourself. Add the
|> context. Where am I dishonest?
|
| | No, I was pointing out through the use of irony that you were hiding
| | your own view of what is '(dis)interesting' behind the grammatically
| | flawed construct "but is not interesting to CL". I presume that this
| | obviously authoritarian (and borderline Orwellian) choice of words
| | comes from a desire to have your opinions appear to have greater
| | veracity that those of others without going to the bother of
| | justifying them.
|
| Context re-inserted. My 'accusation' was an inference from the above
| observation. You deliberately isolated it, and then in the post I'm
| replying to removed it entirely in order to make it appear that my
| words were nothing but an ad hominem attack. *That* is dishonest.

Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

|> | Again you're appealing to another authority, in this case
|> | mathematics. Perhaps if you'd invoked 'mathematicians' it would appear
|> | less vacuous, but in either case you're hiding your position behind
|> | apparent authorities and not having the courage to stand behind it
|> | yourself.
|>
|> Wrong. I am citing established usage of the words `pathological' and
|> `not interesting' in mathematics. Look them up. These are not
|> prejudiced in mathematics, they obviously are prejudiced in your own
|> language, which is why you think you have problems with what I said.
|> This misidentification was what Garret was appealing to. This was not
|> my intent when I used the words, as I've explained too many times.
|
| Not prejudiced? Surely you jest. The word 'pathological' (I'll spare
| you the translation) is far less prejudiced in the biology/medicine
| domains where the *harm* caused by a phenomena is often recognised
| before the phenomena that causes it. Mathematics on the other hand is
| replete with examples of phenomena once considered to be pathological
| only to have the label revoked once general theories that explained
| them were developed.

Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.

| It's important to recognise that in mathematics you can 'prove' (in
| the mathematical sense) a phenomena is *not* pathological, but any
| statement that declares that *is* is subjective by definition. In
| terms of the statements that *you* make, this means your statements
| are just *your* opinion, and your attempts to label them objective by
| hiding them behind authorities is dishonest and logically fallacious.

|> You fell for Garret's line.
|
| Are we sure about that? :-)

Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.

|> |> | And then again above, you attempt it again, by placing your own
|> |> | viewpoint behind a "position of what is interesting from a CL point of
|> |> | view". Your position of course is justifiable
|> |>
|> |> So you are not disagreeing with my position or you accept my
|> |> justification.
|> |
|> | And?
|>
|> So what are you objecting to? Your intent is just to insult me without
|> accepting facts.
|
| I think this post makes it clear what I am objecting to. I wonder what
| contorted lengths you will go to in order to obscure my objection this
| time?
|
| I am not attempting to insult you Sir, you are bringing the insult
| upon yourself.

If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?

| Matt

Better sign off as `Ron Garret'

--
Madhu

From: mdj on 16 Nov 2009 02:54
On Nov 16, 3:42 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote:

> This thread has no contribution except your insults.

On the contrary. I've made several challenges that have gone
unanswered (sans your amateurish attempt at philosophy). The 'silence'
in terms of answering the question I had is as they say, deafening.

> No I am doing no such thing.  I explained my position you continue to
> misunderstand and state your incorrect postition. If you disagree you
> should say.

So I misunderstand and am stating my disagreement incorrectly but if I
disagree I should say so?

I'll be polite and just call this a non sequitur.

> I am responding to your baseless pointless posts.  Stop trolling me if
> you have nothing to add.

> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

No. It should be obvious from the way I use language that I'm not from
the same part of the world.

> Like `hygienic macros' are prejudiced. yes.

Yes, they are, but not inherently useless as a result.

> Yes, I believe youre just Ron trolling under a different name.

Please explain why my posts are trolling.

> If you agree with my position, why are you bothering to post?

I was interested to find out if your position was based on a deeper
understanding of the issues, or simply based on rhetorical pooh-
poohing of anything you consider 'not common lispy enough'. I suppose
I could've read the archives to determine this, but I thought this
might be more fun and/or enlightening.

> Better sign off as `Ron Garret'

I can only assume that from your perspective this is an insult. I can
also only assume from the quality of your responses here that it's
actually in fact a compliment.

Matt
From: Ron Garret on 16 Nov 2009 16:48
In article <m3bpj3kotg.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>,
Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote:

> Are you Ron Garret posting anonymously as mdj ?

No, he isn't. And that's quite the cheeky question considering the fact
that you conceal your own identity behind a pseudonym.

Who are you, "Madhu"?

rg
From: Madhu on 16 Nov 2009 17:10
* Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-5F3504.13480716112009(a)news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:48:09 -0800:
| No, he isn't. And that's quite the cheeky question considering the fact
| that you conceal your own identity behind a pseudonym.

I don't,

| Who are you, "Madhu"?

The person with the same name I was born with.

I didnt change my name like you did, Erran Gat, didn't have any past to
hide.
--
Madhu
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1