Re: Objects and Relations

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:50:00 GMT
Message-ID: <c4Pvh.156$R71.2692@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> "David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>

>>On Jan 30, 6:33 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 29, 9:41 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jan 30, 2:01 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>>These are clear disadvantages of RM here.  Are there any advantages?
>>>
>>>>>     Oh, come on!  Surely you can troll better than that?
>>>
>>>>Do you realise I'm only talking about strings?


> 

>      Yes.  So?

>
>

>>>>I'm not trolling.   I'm quite serious.
>>>
>>>I believe that you believe what you're saying, so in some narrow
>>>sense you're not a troll. But you're still a troll in the broader
>>>sense,
>>>in that you're an outsider who doesn't exhibit much mastery of the
>>>RM, pops in with no prior posting history, and speaks of
>>>"clear disadvantages" without any signs of having done any actual
>>>analysis.
>>
>>I'm not sure why you say I made the claims with no underlying basis.  

>
>
> So what are the clear disadvantages? (As opposed to things that
> appear to you to be disadvantages.)
>
>

>>On the contrary I outlined my reasons for making the claim.  If my 


> 

>                                                               ^^^^^

>

>>reasoning was wrong through inexperience with RM then fair enough.  


> 

>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >But saying there

> was "no analysis" is quite wrong.
>

>>Implying I'm arrogant for making claims without sufficient experience 


> 

>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>

>>or credentials also comes across as a little arrogant on your part.

>
>
> You just admitted the point. Marshall just caught onto it more
> quickly than you did.
>
> Being ignorant is not a crime. Being ignorant and disrespecting
> the field from which you are requesting help is not either, but maybe,
> it should be.
>

>>Anyway I'm more interested in engaging in an objective discussion.  
>>I'm quite happy to defend (and if necessary retract) my statements 
>>through criticism.


> 

>      Why make statements that you have to retract?


In the case of a reasonably educated person who has intellectual 

honesty, to advance understanding--one's own and/or other's. In the case of an unreasonably uneducated person who lacks intellectual honesty, to provoke someone else into providing a free education.

I find the latter very manipulative and frankly rude.

> Stating that you can not see how one would do something in an
> area and asking for help is much better than stating that the area is
> inadequate. After all, you do not know that, do you?
>
>

>>>If Gene dismisses you out of hand, I cannot fault him.


> 

>      I did not quite do that, but the responsibility for the proof of

> your claims lies with you. It is easy to claim that the RM is
> inadequate. It is quite another to prove it.

Proof by assumption seems to pass in some circles. Is it any surprize that one who comes from such a circle assumes it passes everywhere? Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 15:50:00 CST