Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Phil Carmody <>
Date: 25 Sep 2006 10:20:17 +0300
Message-ID: <>

Chris Smith <> writes:
> Brian Selzer <> wrote:
> > There is no fallacy, except in your statement. Only a fool would accept at
> > face value any assertion made by a liar, a lunatic or a buffoon. The
> > introduction of profanity and personal attacks leads one to question the
> > motivation, intelligence, and maturity of the speaker. It is prudent,
> > therefore, for one to reevaluate any argument put forth by such a person,
> > taking that adolescent behavior into account.
> Definitely.

But did you change your evaluation of the mathematical argument I put forward? Did it flip from correct to incorrect just because I said "fucking idiot" 6 posts later in the thread. If not, then what was achieved by the reevaluation - it sounds completely unnecessary?

Often, except for truly hopeless cases, bluntness catalyses people into going back to square one and reevaluating their positions, forcing them to justify what they assert, and perhaps do more research. Therefore it's a useful tool when they have grave misconceptions. It's only used _after_ the process of simply feeding facts or corrections to the recipient has been exhausted.

If one is supposed to read between the lines of Brian's post, he's calling me a liar, a lunatic, or a buffoon, and quite explicitly stated that my motivation, intelligence, and maturity are questionable. Is that not insulting? If so - Brian's resorted to insults, and is no better than I. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

> > You wrote, "There are some sets, such as {0, 1}, where every value between 0
> > and 1 (including both endpoints) is minimum."
> >
> > Unless 0 and 1 belong to some domain other than integers, whole numbers or
> > real numbers, it is clear that 0 is the minimum value of the set {0, 1}. I
> > don't know where you came up with the idea that both values are minimum.
> That statement was made, though, in the context of defining the median.
> The definition put forth (I don't recall by whom) is that the median is
> the number c such that the sum of the distances of each member of the
> set from c is minimized. In that context, the statement makes sense.
> When considering the set {0, 1}, any real number c from zero to one
> minimizes the sum of distances of members of the set from from c.
> Not meant to encourage juvenile behavior, but there was context for that
> statement.

Thank you for remembering the context. I suspect Brian jumped in late and hadn't paid attention earlier in the thread.


"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank 
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 09:20:17 CEST

Original text of this message