Re: L

Cimode wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
> > instead of wasting time with admitted guesses, why don`t you just answer
> > the question and say you don`t know and you have no idea why it matters.
> > your topic seems to be newsgroup rhetoric, not c.d.t.
> dawn's problem goes way above her being or not a relational theorist.
> Her reasonning is fundamentally flawed at all levels by a motivated
> ignorance of mathematical definitions

Fortunately we have a way to handle that in this ng. We can add terms that are confusing to the glossary. I think I have given you the definitions that I am using, but if there are terms where I am not being clear in how I am using them, please let me know. Then if my definitions are flawed, we can address that. I do not know how to address it when you say my definitions are flawed without providing yours.

> as well as a strong paradignm
> blindness. Several people on the NG have given her demonstrations
> through sound reasonning about the subject at hand,

I don't even know what you are trying to discredit in what I am saying.  Please help me out by pointing out what I have said in this thread that is inaccurate. I would like to understand that.

> but she keeps
> refusing their arguments without having any valid point to present.

I honestly don't know where there is a logical counter-argument. You asked for an example, I gave and example; you said it didn't meet your definitions, I provided definitions. Could you summarize the logical argument that shows that something I have said in this thread is inaccurate?

> Not only she persists and signs, but she keeps diverting attention from
> her ignorance using self victimization and inverse role playing
> techniques,

Hog wash. I have tried to understand what you have been writing.

> especially when the truth becomes too obvious.

Which truth is it of which you speak?

> At the same
> time she continuously tries to gain sympathy from people dummier than
> her.

What a bunch of crap. What is your motivation? Can we get back to the topic? I still don't know what you are contesting, other than saying that my definitions are flawed and then not providing your own.

> In other words, she is a self aggrandizing ignorant who lacks
> intellectual honesty to have a productive debate with in the first
> place. That is why, she is indeed a lost cause.

What is your motivation in this discussion? I was trying to understand your point and have no reason to trash you, just try to understand you.  If you are unwilling to provide your definitions and explain what is wrong with my reasoning, then perhaps you feel you must instead treat me badly, but I don't want to return that approach.

> As far as I am concerned, this is the first and last exchange, I am
> attemting to have with her.

If you can't play fair, then I guess you feel you need to throw sand in my face and stomp away. It's your choice. Have a happy and productive life, Cimode. --dawn Received on Tue Oct 10 2006 - 21:54:56 CEST