Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Dave Greenwood wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> Commenting on the
> > posts, the ideas therein, etc. is perfectly fair game, and I am
> > among the harshest critics of the *ideas* of some of the people
> > whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay I am a much more
> > *effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas by
> > third parties than you are, because my refutations are
> > substantive and address the ideas themselves, whereas your
> > refutations are dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent
> > people do not find persuasive.
>
> Well, since "you can't observe the people" how do you know the above?

I don't; I freely admit the above is speculation. (Hence the "I daresay"--
speculation is daring.) What I was pointing out was that the earlier poster was speculating but labelling his speculation as empirical observation.

> With nobody to counterpoint the nonsense forcefully like Bob does,
> chances are the likes of Neo can be markedly nominated as the ones
> capable "to discuss logic, type theory, formal methods, and relational
> aspects of same" than any of us.

There are vast hoardes of people who refute Neo. Bob is nothing special in this regard, neither by weight nor by volume. He does however represent an endpoint in decorum spectrum. (I also note that I don't recall Neo has ever mentioned type theory nor formal methods.)

> > There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> > reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> > dislike name calling,
>
> [Excused]

For this I thank you, sir. (No irony.)

> > Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such a person, and we
> > could see how you reacted to him? Yes, your reaction would
> > be quite telling, I think. Oh, oh, wait, hang on, there *was*
> > such a person who used to come here. Yes, and he was
> > much better at formal methods, logic, etc. than either
> > you or I. I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
>
> You are duped. All I can say is you have no clue who he is or
> what he does.

Certainly I have no clue who he is or what he does. I don't pretend to. I only observe what he writes. Since he's not present, I will go out on a limb and assert that what he writes is rude, and I wish he wouldn't be that way. (I have seen him taken to task for it on a variety of newsgroups.) On the other hand, his writing is intellectually compelling. I think he is the only person on this newsgroup I can think of who has mentioned formal methods, and has provided pointers to further reading on same.

Marshall Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 18:10:09 CEST