Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:46:51 GMT
Message-ID: <fCURg.5044$>

Although I usually ignore Bob, I will not stand idly by when one of his attacks is directed at me personally. Bob is a clear example of someone who exhibits a perhaps pathological need to direct personal attacks at people. Although some of what he has to say may appear on the surface to have merit, his statements are so riddled with vitriol and in some cases utter absurdity that it's not worth the time or effort to sift through them. If he is suffering from a pathological condition, then he is deserving of compassion or at least pity, but like I said earlier, only a fool would take assertion he makes at face value.

"Bob Badour" <> wrote in message news:1dPRg.38582$
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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
>>>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
>> Thank you for remembering the context. I suspect Brian jumped in late and
>> hadn't paid attention earlier in the thread.
> Nah. Brian is a self-aggrandizing ignorant who showed up in c.d.t a few
> weeks ago. He likes to make long-winded arguments full of concrete
> examples while simple statements regarding the essential abstractions sail
> clear over his head.
> I added him to my twit filter weeks ago.
Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 19:46:51 CEST

Original text of this message