Re: Objects and Relations

From: JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:03:35 -0800
Message-ID: <1171292615.850269.85740_at_s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 12, 2:51 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 12:31 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>JOG wrote:
>
> >>It went on so long because you kept feeding the troll, Jim.
>
> > I don't agree the original post was merely troll bait - its far too
> > easy a term to throw about (although we have our fair share on cdt).
> > Here it is over-exuberance in an idea, without anywhere near
> > sufficient exploration or research. There is a whole host of reasons
> > that nonsense is generated and trolling is just one of them. It
> > implies intention, whereas in this case, imo it is more naivite and
> > obstinancy in the arguments.
>
> Jim, you have an hypothesis. I very quickly reached a different
> hypothesis. Which of our hypotheses has greater predictive value?

Well my rose-tinted hypothesis is certainly not looking so hot now.

>
> In the end, whether David is a crank like Cimode or Neo, a snake-oil
> salesman like Joe or Dawn, or a more classic troll has little import.
>
> All of the above share the same very important trait: they lack
> intellectual honesty.
>
> One can speculate on a physical pathology in cases like Cimode or Neo;
> however, whether the missing intellectual honesty is more "cannot" than
> "will not" has little effect in the end. Whether the individual
> self-aggrandizes for the indirect benefit to some hair-brained construct
> or for some direct benefit to himself makes precious little difference.
>
> Likewise, it doesn't matter in the end whether the individual sees
> himself as an altruist pursuing some noble cause or a cynic duping all
> the suckers. The outcome remains the same.
>
> When David first arrived here, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He
> very rapidly and very emphatically proved he has no intellectual
> honesty. Everything of his I have seen since only reinforces the
> hypothesis. He is here to promote himself.
>
> Lacking intellectual honesty, he cannot or will not learn. You cannot
> persuade him or teach him. Because his responses lack sincerity, you
> cannot evaluate your rhetoric or pedagogy against his responses. Without
> meaningful feedback, you cannot improve your rhetoric or pedagogy by
> interacting with him.
>
> If you keep interacting with him, I can only assume you get some other
> payoff from doing so. I have no idea what the payoff might be.
>
> > There are people out there who will make mistakes, but are capable of
> > rectifying them in time. Maybe not as quickly as people like yourself,
> > vadim, jan, etc., and definitely not within the remit of a single
> > thread, but they /can do/ eventually. That is why I'd encourage you to
> > keep your forthright stance but without resorting to insults over a
> > single thread.
>
> This is not David's first thread. Jim, there are important reasons why
> David is in my killfile and you are not. Neither is Marshall. Neither
> are quite a handful of people who have showed up here over the years.
> Some of them came here as novices to the field. Some of them obviously
> know more about the field than I do.
>
> I keep a copy of the following post pinned to a wall near my computer:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/ff845b5d43c991d4?as_umsgid=3e6ef1b..._at_news.ruca.ua.ac.be
>
> It is a response to something provocative I wrote. Jan's reply models
> intellectual honesty with tremendous clarity. Contrast that with the
> ways the self-aggrandizing ignorants react.
>
> > I find your best posts are the latter (and *especially* think they
> > read the best to new readers).
>
> Do you know what an interrupt is? I find new readers are lazy and
> complacent. Something needs to shock them into thinking for themselves.
>
>
>
> >>I sincerely hope you take my other suggestions to heart.
>
> > You can rest assured that I give all your suggestions thought, and
> > think there are a lot of perceptive points there.
>
> >> I would like to
> >>see more of the sort of content that Vadim and Marshall generate when
> >>they are playing with the math.
>
> > Totally agree.
>
> >>You have mentioned teaching. I hope you
> >>find a way to produce educated students proofed against some of the
> >>nonsense they will see.
>
> > Aye, it has become a bit of an obsession in fact. I'd also like to see
> > more online resources for creating such nonsense-proofing, especially
> > now dbdebunk appears to have been wound down. But that's another
> > thread.
>
> We all lost a tremendously valuable resource when Fabian lost interest
> in the field. I find it a very melancholy time right now. A lot of the
> most influential thinkers are reaching the ends of their careers. Some
> of my heros like Codd and Dijkstra have already passed on. Now, Jim Gray
> is missing at sea.
>
> I wonder when we will see more like them. Hopefully, the next generation
> of great and clear thinkers is already out there somewhere.

I am finding the whole experience of trying to relay to others what I have learnt on cdt incredibly frustrating and disillusioning. Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 16:03:35 CET

Original text of this message