Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

On Jan 25, 6:31 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Honest disagreement is one thing. Dishonesty in debate is very
> > disruptive of a discussion group.
>
> I completely agree and I want to make it clear that I am an honest
> person and do not even know what you think I have said that is
> dishonest.

I observe a disconnect between what you say you are doing and what it looks like you are doing. As near as I can tell you have had your mind made up on the relative value of MV and RM for quite some time, and protestations to the contrary you only appear to be seeking rhetorical points to support same. This is a much more central point than, say, 2VL vs. 3VL. This is coupled with the technique of regular and repeated apologies in the face of strong opposition--weird. Unswerving faith in a position expressed as if it was open-minded truth seeking.

We also see a generally low opinion of theory, which I suppose in fine in modern America, ha ha, but out of place in a theory newsgroup. Add a general near-total refusal to take the conversation below the 50,000 foot level. It is always "I prefer" but never anything solid as to why. No specifics. No comparisons. No analysis. Instead we hear a wish for prohibitively expensive multi-year case study, which we both know is never going to happen as you describe it.

All of this leads up to a lot of frustration from a lot of people, myself included. And I have to say, it comes off a lot less like honesty and a lot more like its complete opposite.

Marshall Received on Thu Jan 25 2007 - 16:57:07 CET