Re: Objects and Relations

On Jan 31, 1:19 pm, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> David BL wrote:
> > Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > > David BL wrote:
> > > > What usage of "onus" are you referring to?
>
> > > Umm ...
>
> > > "You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the onus
> > > of proof often depends on the nature of the claim
> > > rather that who is making it."
>
> > > The general tone of that sentence (and your posts) mesh
> > > with "onus" into a precocious whole.
>
> > Unfortunately I have already developed a bad case of
> > cynicism. In my first post to this newsgroup I was taken
> > back with the aggressive nature of posters like Bob.
>
> I'm not sure what you are talking about; but, every post
> is a new post. It's not too late to stop the train wreck.
> Please try. Go placidly amid the noise and haste.

Oops I meant "thread".

> > My objective is certainly not to insult anyone. That quote
> > above was making a point, associated with the asymmetry in
> > ease of proving universally quantified statements compared
> > to merely finding a counter example.
>
> > Consider the statement "Formal system X is consistent".
> > Can this be proven true? Not generally! It is more of an
> > unproven conjecture.
>
> David .. it's clear that you are very excited. Relax. Take
> a deep breath and think about that chill-pill I mentioned
> previously.

I feel quite relaxed. If I said the same to you would you be offended? What do you think you achieve with that?

> Thus far, the posters you have dealt with in
> this thread (with the exception of One) do not need you to
> teach them basic logic and philosophy. Certainly I do not.

I wasn't trying to teach basic logic. I was preparing a context that I assumed you would find familiar for talking about my use of the word "onus".

> > In that sense the onus is instead to show that X is
> > inconsistent. How is this use of "onus" precocious?
>
> How is it not?

Please explain how it is precocious because I don't get it.

Evidently we have trouble communicating. I certainly find your posts inflammatory and apparently you find mine as well. Let's leave it at that.

To be honest I have zero interest in talking about what's rude, inflammatory, one's emotional state and so on. If you have something technical to say then say it, otherwise I'm not interested.

Feel free to think I'm precocious or rude or whatever if you must. Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 06:03:26 CET