Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:48:09 GMT
Message-ID: <t6RRg.4951$>

"Phil Carmody" <> wrote in message

> 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.

I want to clear this up right now. There is nothing between the lines of my post: I simply provided examples of people whose arguments require greater scrutiny. Before your current reply, I hadn't detected any hint of dishonesty or mental instability in your posts. I am for the most part an optimist. I consider someone trustworthy until they prove otherwise through word or deed. I hope that you understand that you yourself called your motiviation, intelligence, and maturity into question. I want to clear something else up as well. I didn't use the term "questionable" because it also connotes immorality. I find your use of the term dishonest. I am also beginning to wonder about your state of mind, but perhaps you're just being overly sensitive. My intent was to instruct, not to insult, but I can't control how you choose to deal with criticism. My hope is that some good will come of this: maybe you'll think twice before injecting profanity and personal attacts into a discussion.

>> > 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.
> Phil
> --
> "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 - 15:48:09 CEST

Original text of this message