Re: How to normalize this?

On Saturday, 9 February 2013 11:56:58 UTC+11, hugoko..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> Op zaterdag 9 februari 2013 01:39:40 UTC+1 schreef derek.a..._at_gmail.com het volgende:
>
> > Of course. The solution is simple.

Oh, I failed to mention the bleeding obvious: the solution is simple, but the explanation is not.

It appears you understand that:
> I posted the question, and the best answer I could find myself. I have considered several other answers before, then carefully tried to find flaws in them. And rejected them. I don't like my final answer either, which is why I posted.

> Or don't post it, if you relish claiming to be far superior without bothering to prove it. But don't be surprised if I stop taking you seriously if all you do is claim to know something and then fail to deliver.

You can't prove or disprove anything to a mental patient. Your attacks and insinuations of same have no credibility. Call me a murderer, it has no effect, I do not have the need to prove otherwise. I won't be baited or tricked into responding and engaging without resolution.

> I have never knowingly done any of the above. Nor do I plan to.

Ok, so you are not only ignorant, but you are ignorant that you are ignorant.

To understand the relevance of this, find and read a great paper by Justin Kruger and David Dunning named "Unskilled and Unaware". The people like you screamed in agony when the read it, and people like Fagin and Date mounted insane "logic" attacks, so they wrote a second paper that shut the lunatics up. Just read the first one for now.

> But I *will* give any answer I get here the same treatment I gave to my own attempts - try to shoot holes in them as hard as I can.

Ok, so you are proving that you will be argumentative and unteachable.

> If I can't find any problems, I'll thank you and I'll have learned. If I do see problems, I'll tell you, and we'll both have learned.

Completely in-credible.

> Me asking does not mean I should take replies I get, from you or from anyone else, as gospel. If that's what you want me to do, then please don't reply.

See, there is the madman exposing himself. Idiotic references to extremes which are out of scope.

> As I told you in my email, I do not get notifications of new posts in this topic, and I stopped regularly visiting usenet groups a long time ago. If you had sent me a heads up that you responded (as you did with your earlier response), I would have seen it sooner.

Another incredibility, given the fact that, despite what you say, you took just 18 minutes to notice my post *and* to respond to it.

> ... I also suggest that we keep the issues we have in that other topic seperate from this topic.

I am not schizophrenic. I am not programmed to tolerate insane contradictions. If you are a bear in that room, you will be a bear in this room. Which is why I suggested boundaries in this room. Your post merely proves that you are very attached to being a bear; you cannot give it up and take a learning position; and you reject my terms.

> Since your post is a list of conditions that will make you stop reading my posts, there is nothing for me to accept or reject.

You do not have the courtesy to accept/reject the stated terms like a gentleman. No, you have to post evidence of insane thinking, and reject it on your terms. Which is fine, and it is a rejection of my terms, no matter what you call it, no matter how much you dance around it, no matter if you re-define the terms as non-terms. (I notice you have your own private definitions for many things.

> But I would very much appreciate if someone could post a reply to my question here.

Sure, enjoy your theoretical discussions.

Goodbye
Derek Received on Sat Feb 09 2013 - 02:42:12 CET