Re: All hail Bob!

From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: 10 May 2006 12:18:42 -0700
Message-ID: <1147288722.902898.12070_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Frank Hamersley wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > My heart was lifted to see this post. Being an absolute
> > newcomer to this NG perhaps you may be interested in the
> > tail explaining why. Especially since being a newcomer
> > (I only started reading the archives of this NG several
> > days ago)
>
> Not a very big sample size! Individuals posting
> frequencies here can be quite lumpy.

For sure, agreed. Then again I'm just relating a tale I thought some might find interesting or amusing.

> > I truly had no prior knowledge of nor any bias for or
> > against any of the regulars in this group.
> >
> > I do however, have a significant bias against willful
> > ignorance and stupidity and an eye trained to recognize
> > it quickly. And here is what happened.
>
> What about domain knowledge - I assume you consider
> yourself well endowed to be sorting the diamonds from the
> coal?

Well let me ask you, can one determine that a logical proof is flawed regardless of the model? Can one recognize flawed argumentation without domain knowledge? I think it is well known that the answer to both of these questions is affirmative. And yes I do consider myself well endowed and trained to sort solid arguments from fallacious ones.

> > ... Often these ignorami attacked as a pack pathetically
> > like so many lesser evolved animals in typical mob
> > behavior.
>
> Hmmm - I haven't noticed any concerted attacks - did I
> miss something or are you embellishing (lets say poetic
> licence)? That said Bob and I have a recent history but
> that is all one on one - no pack involved.

I think you may have missed something then. I recall (admittedly now a compressed memory and thus a somewhat vague belief) that this did occur. If it is important to you I find the examples underlying this belief.

> > Now EN, for his own purposes, continually engaged these
> > pack animals.
>
> So he was clever, but not that smart then!

As I said he had a purpose. Would you say that an undercover policeman who burns out from the stress of the position and returns to "regular" police work was "not that smart" for having chosen to serve as an undercover officer for some time? Having said that, I do not necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I simply do not have enough knowledge to decide whether EN was smart to engage or not. I only know that one of the final outcomes (him tiring and leaving) was a loss for myself and the community. Perhaps you should reserve judgment as well?

> > I was truly worried the same doom awaited BB. So I was
> > heartened to see a recent posting of at least one other
> > who appreciates the especially helpful and keen (though
> > sometimes blunt :) Bob Badour.
>
> I think Bob has a thick hide - so it is much less likely.

I really do hope this is so. I thought EN had a thick hide, and maybe he did; but, then one day he was gone.

JOG wrote:
> Strider wrote:
> > Fabian Pascal at his site has whole section dedicated to
> > analyzing and identifying ignorance and ignorami:
> > http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3161496.htm
>
> There's a certain sense of irony at work when people use
> the incorrect plural of ignoramus. Faux pluralisation of
> latin-looking words is a sure sign of.... well, nevermind
> ;)

Ignoramus IS a Latin word (not just "latin-looking" though ignoramus is not a Latin noun). It is _also_ an English word (noun). Therefore one could reasonably allow an informal discussant the flexibility to use ignorami (which would probably have been correct Latin had ignoramus been a noun) rather than ignoramuses (correct English). So it is not a "sure" sign of ignorance and thus may or may not be ironic. For example if and when I employ ignorami it is an informed decision usually made primarily if it seems kewl. In my first post I used it to pay homage to BB who had used ignorami on several occasions in what I assumed to be an informed "insider" choice for this newsgroup.

Keith Received on Wed May 10 2006 - 21:18:42 CEST

Original text of this message