Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:34:17 GMT
Message-ID: <dC1Eg.44903$pu3.554610_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
erk wrote:
>>False enough. Dawn wastes a great deal of time ranting and >>insulting implicitly and explicitly entire communities.
>
> No, I haven't found that to be the case. You can call her ignorant if
> you like, but insulting? You'd have to be terminally thin-skinned to
> believe that.
>
>>One >>need only read virtually any of her postings to see this >>demonstrated.
>
> I've read many of her posts, not least because the conversation that
> surrounds them is always compelling. And I don't see what you see. I've
> read things similar to this before, concerning Dawn, and I find her
> civil and restrained - especially in view of what's typically slung at
> her.
Snake-oil salesmen and confidence men invariable do seem that way. That's how they separate lonely old widows from their life's savings.
>>For example the one you are replying to: >> >>dawn wrote: >> >>>>... the RM-advocates have trashed ... even though they >>>>seemed to have ZERO emperical data to prove their point
Empirically false. Others have provided mountains of empirical evidence. It is an insult to them for her to turn around and simply deny their efforts. I don't let the insult bother me--I simply note that engaging trolls like her is a waste of effort.
I want them to adapt to me because I
>>>>want progress ...
Erk, bow down before me and obey my will! Only in this way can we progress.
While you are down there, fetch me my slippers.
They need to be more flexible ...
Erk, you are inflexible.
so don't snow
And stop snowing her by calling lists evil. While you are at it, stop
fucking sheep.
>>>>me with that ...
Whatever the hang-up is, get over
>>>>it.
Yeah, get over the hang-up--there's nothing wrong with thinly-haired bipedal apes.
> I don't see a single insult in here - again, unless your flesh is
> phyllo.
To feel much of anything as a result of the insult would imply thin skin. However, that doesn't make them any less insults.
You can say she's wrong (I don't agree with her much),
> ignorant, blah blah blah, but not insulting. Sorry. That's just false,
> however much I disagree with her.
Whether one cares about the insult or feels anything in particular as a result of the insult is different from whether it is an insult in the first place.
>>Other choice insults hurled by Dawn include "rape[ists]", >>"terrorists", "blind", etc. So please Erk, do not support >>Dawn's lies.
>
> Were we talking about truth or insults?
Erk, stop raping terrorists. How could you be so blind?
Different scopes. Dawn can be
> and has been wrong about various things, and some arguments I find
> compelling simply don't convince her at all.
At this moment, you are exhibiting a surprising lack of intellectual honesty. Denial of an objective reality doesn't serve any useful purpose.
I don't think she lies,
Either she lies or she is remarkably stupid or both. Does it matter which?
> although I think she misinterprets things about the RM, things I've
> already spelled out elsewhere. All of the above is standard in debate,
> right?
All kinds of sophistry is rampant in the formal method of debate as a means of emotional persuasion. However, sophistry and emotion have no real use in the face of logical argument and theory.
> Sorry I lack the encyclopedic knowledge of Dawn's word choices that you
> seem to have; I missed the "rapeist" line, although any rational person
> would interpret her use of the words "terrorist" and "rape" as
> metaphors for written attacks.
Insulting metaphors used as a rhetorical technique. Perhaps, she should spend more of her time at comp.databases.rhetoric instead of here.
Perhaps they're overblown, but she's
> certainly not actually accusing anyone of rape or terrorist acts.
Are you suggesting that morally equating someone to a rapist or terrorist is somehow not an insult unless it is an actual accusation of rape or terrorism?
>>I didn't drag her here! We all know she was lurking, losing >>the battle to hold back her rants and PICK-ax grinding.
>
> hahahahahahahaha
>
> I'm sorry, that's just funny. She said she was leaving, and you didn't
> believe her; you invoked her name, she replied, and now you're accusing
> her of having manipulated your mind to force you to do so?
I don't see how you jumped to that last conclusion.
>>>>P.S. I figured I respond so that you didn't look like a >>>>coward attacking someone who wasn't around to defend >>>>herself. smiles. >>> >>>Ouch. Nicely done. >> >>Her sentiment is not genuine and is merely a thinly veiled >>insult meant to conceal the pathetic fact that she found an >>excuse to rant.
>
> OK, yes, here she does insult you. I found it clever, and padded for
> minimum discomfort, redness, swelling, and chafing.
So, insinuating cowardice is an insult, but morally equating someone to a rapist is not? Am I correct in your interpretation of what constitutes an insult? Doesn't the moral equation insinuate cowardice?
>>I've learned my lesson. Using Dawn's name >>simply fed a cranky troll. But, it was inevitable she would >>break her word and return to cdt merely two months after >>loudly proclaiming her departure.
>
> A hideous lie; we're all reeling from the deception.
>
>>-- Keith -- Fraud 6
>
> heh
>
> - erk
> Fraud Without Number