Re: All hail Bob!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:58:06 GMT
Message-ID: <2eu8g.1416$S7.979_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>> Keith H Duggar wrote:
[..]
>> 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.
But sadly not uncommon perhaps - such is the Usenet.
[..]
>> 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.
No problem - the scope of interests here is quite broad - some of which are beyond me so I simply lurk hoping to learn. Getting to know the personalities over time speeds the process.
>>> ... 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.
Not important - I have been tracking CDT for a while now and haven't detected crowds assembling. I have 2 entries in my killfile but as Section 54B (oppressive WA law to curb unions during Nookanbah) says it takes 3 to constitute a riot.
>>> 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 accept the respect you accord him, however it is important also to avoid wasting useful energy trying to drown the horses. In fact some won't even be led kicking and screaming to the well.
Of course others will reasonably challenge conventional thinking and this can lead to robust discourse. Hopefully that process does not need to trash them as a certain outcome.
>>> 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.
Bob wasn't seen in CDT until recently - back from sabbatical perhaps - but I expect he will go the distance.
Cheers, Frank. Received on Thu May 11 2006 - 00:58:06 CEST