What the H - Holmes is back!

You're free to read whatever you like, of course. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sure, there's a small number who try. But they don't give me much to go on, so I don't take it very seriously.Like, Michael thinks that I sound like an asshole. Well, ok, but what can I do about that? When he reads my posts, he hears an asshole tone of voice in his head. But you can read anything that way. What could I possibly say or do that would convince him otherwise, now that he's in the habit of reading my posts in an asshole tone of voice?Use more smileys? Do you read his posts top to bottom? If you just skim over, like the admins do, it's easy to miss.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Like, do we really exist? type deal? If you aren't entirely sure what is real, then how are you certain that I'm wrong most of time?-- relatively speaking. More than that, how can I even be wrong when there is no such thing as right and wrong beyond opinions? Oh, I already knew that.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I said I am not sure what's real, not what's not real.It's sort of like this. Off the top of my head, I don't know what 5634.23 X 123456 is. You come waltzing along and tell me it's -24351. Now, I know for sure that's not right.Just because we can't tell what's right doesn't mean we can't tell what's wrong. As I have said before, I'm a moral absolutist. I must admit that I don't know what those moral absolutes are most of the time. However, your "opinions" look more to me like negative answers even though the problems only consisted of positive numbers.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I wonder if the disagreement on this point isn't illusory.Speaking precisely, Taz, you do know what is right. That is why you can see the proposed answer won't work. You know that the right answer, whatever it is, will not be a negative number.There are limits to what anyone knows, of course. But the proposed answer in your example does not fall outside those limits for you. It contradicts something you really do know.___________Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Oh sure.Take Nem's stance on homosexuality being unnatural, for example. We observe the behavior in just about every part of the animal kingdom. We're not just talking about a dog randomly humping another dog. We're talking about animal that consistantly and persitantly pairing with other animal of the same sex. In species that are monogomous, like certain species of birds, these same sex animal actually pair with each other for life. Some would go as far as steal eggs from other birds and then care for the eggs. Not only this, some researchers have actually developed experimental procedures that (mostly involve chemical and hormonal treatments) have actually changed the sexual preferences of these homosexual animal.Now, as far as any intended cosmic purpose or whatever that goes on behind the scene, I'd have to say I don't know. But clearly, Nem's position that it's "not natural therefore it's wrong" bullshit is obviously wrong.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

But that's a non-sequitor. If you know what isn't real, then you would also know what is real by default. Since there are only two choices from to choose, knowing one answer will automatically give the other answer too because of the process of elimination. That makes no sense. If one is in ambiguity, then the other would be too. If you had multiple questions, then, sure, that would make sense. But knowing one will automatically give to the answer to the other.So it seems that you aren't sure what is real or what is not real, in which case, you would essentially be promoting nihilism or perhaps even solipsism. I'm not sure I follow. Can you elucidate for me?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to Taz:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just because we can't tell what's right doesn't mean we can't tell what's wrong.

---

​

That makes no sense.

---

Yes, it does. It's a common outcome of logic: You may be able to show that A <> B, but that doesn't mean you can show that A = C.As a simplistic example: I can taste something and definitely tell that you it isn't salt but still be unable to tell you what it is.This is the way science works: We can never tell when we're right but we can definitely tell when we're wrong.Again, look at the history of kinematics. Aristotelian physics certainly seemed right: Objects at rest remain at rest while objects in motion come to rest. We couldn't prove it right, but we eventually showed it to be wrong. Newton came along and showed that objects at rest remain at rest but objects in motion remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force.And then Einstein came along and showed that even that wasn't true. There's no such thing as "at rest." It only makes sense from a relative point of view. Newton envisioned a linear world and Einstein showed that to be wrong.That doesn't mean we know that Einstein is right. It certainly seems to be right, but that isn't good enough. Science is an observational process and it is impossible to make every observation. We might be absolutely right with our current model of kinematics, but we'll never know for sure.All it takes is one observation to show that we're wrong.There will never be enough observations to show that we're right.The best we can hope for is "accurate given all information we currently have."

quote:

---

But knowing one will automatically give to the answer to the other.

---

Incorrect. The history of Incompleteness Theorems show this to be false.Godel showed that if we assumed the size of the continuum was equal to Aleph-one, then no contradiction of the axioms of set theory arise.Well, that means it's true, right? If you can't make a contradiction, then it must be true, right?Not so fast...Cohen later showed that if we assumed the size of the continuum was not equal to Aleph-one, then no contradiction of the axioms of set theory arise.Well, now we're in a pickle: Assuming it's true doesn't lead to a contradiction but neither does assuming that it's false.It's not enough to show what it is not (except under unique circumstances which I hope you can figure out on your own by now.)

quote:

---

So it seems that you aren't sure what is real or what is not real, in which case, you would essentially be promoting nihilism or perhaps even solipsism.

---

Not at all. Just because you don't know what is real doesn't mean you think nothing is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Bear with me as I try to explain this through an anecdote.I was part of a project which fell apart due to personal issues. I felt I had been mistreated, and later so had another, and so on.Years later I met with someone from the project. While we had had problems with each other, we agreed to put the past behind us and talked. As I learned, after I had left pretty much everyone else had their own problems with each other. The whole project had descended into a terrible mess, beyond anything I could have imagined.In turn I met some others, and while I could get along with each one now, the rest couldn't stand talking with anyone else. The lingering hatred was thick... bordering on violent.Every person had their own version of what happened. They all differed and no one wanted to see it differently. And they even conflicted with my version of what had happened.This is the Rashomon effect.The only way I was able to get along with these people was by forgetting the past, and not trying to come to some conclusion about what happened... seeking answers for a mutually agreed plot line. I understood that they would always feel like what they thought happened, happened. So would I.And that didn't mean asking for, or giving, apologies. You can't have that if you both feel so fundamentally sure that your own version of events is the correct version of events.It required really forgetting the past and treating the person as someone new. Not mentioning what happened, especially if on feels "oh there the person goes again." It took biting one's tongue and trying to work on the immediate impasse as if it had no connection to anything else.I'm not trying to claim some guru status with this or something, just stating that this is the only practical method I found. And it worked.As far as you and I go, I don't want to discuss the past. I cannot explain myself to you, and you will never get an apology from me about it. And that's because I have no idea what you are talking about. It is so fundamentally different than what I believe is true about the past. I don't throw it in your face because I get that there's no way I could convince you of the facts (of my version), and I'm not saying that's your fault. It's just this frickin' Rashomon effect which can happen.So my suggestion is to let the past go. If you have a problem with something specific that I am saying, treat it as a communication error and attempt to fix it. Linking it to the past is only going to make me angry because of what I feel the past was really like.Also, we seem to have a communication problem anyway. I think our senses of humor and syntax throw each other off. Sometimes it feels like walking a tightrope or playing russian roulette saying anything to you... I'll be thinking everything's fine and the next second, wham! And I may just be talking about something innocuous. This is not to blame you, just to say I think misunderstandings come easier so it takes an extra effort to keep things flowing smoothly.From my perspective you tend to lace your arguments with personal insults, which I realize can just be a way of speaking and nothing is meant by it, but it just turns me off... especially right now in my life. I need things kept reasonably calm and without sharp edges. There is no need to talk about the other person... or if there is then it's better to just drop it altogether.Yeah so that makes me high maintenance. If you feel this is too much or you really need an explanation or apology about the past, all I can recommend is that you try not discussing things with me.I will not be getting into huge arguments with you, and preferably no one else, anymore. And I will simply cut off serious debate with someone until an even tone, without insult, is generated over a course of less serious conversation.If you have questions regarding my stance, and make them without insulting verbiage, I'll answer them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The difference, though, is that in Rashomon, the point is that a given instant in time is fleeting and ephemeral, and that it only survives as our memories. Where our memories differ, there's really no such thing as the "true" course of events; each recollection is as true as another.However, here on the internet, what you say and do does persist. It remains as objective fact, and to portray a given post as saying something other than what it actually does - as you consistently do to Rrhain, and to Nator, and to Molbiogirl, and to Brennakimi, and to many, many others - is not a charming meditation on the ephemerality of truth, it's the basest slander and misrepresentation. And I told you you didn't have to. It certainly isn't in my power to make you do so, even if I wanted to, which I don't. I can't understand why you feel you're being asked to defend conduct that happened a year ago. I told you, repeatedly, that you would not have to do so. That I had no wish for you to do so. That it was my earnest hope that you would simply turn your back on how you've acted in the past and continue in a new vein, a vein where you don't relentlessly misrepresent people and where you actually respond to their arguments as written, not as you had wished them to be written.Remember? I told you that two weeks ago:

quote:

---

I have not brought up the past because I'm trying to get you sanctioned for past behavior. That's not in my power to do, and if the admins were going to take action for the behaviors I chronicled, they would have done so back then.

​

I only brought it up because NJ asked me to do so. He wanted an example of what I thought was objectionable behavior on your part, so I provided one. I linked to that post merely for his edification, not to seek sanctions against you.

​

If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you. The past is not forgotten, but it will only be an impediment to your current activities if you choose to make it one.

---

How you read those statements and were able to interpret them as "I'm going to hound you about your past wherever you go until you defend it" is beyond understanding. It's the innocuousness that's so aggravating. We can be talking about just the littlest, most insignificant thing - and you still can't refrain from misrepresenting me, can't refrain from relentless contrarianism, can't refrain from disingenuous "I don't know what you're talking about, who, little ol' me?" complaints when these behaviors of yours are discussed.It's like you just can't bear to lose an argument, or be seen as anything but the guy who stomped his opponent with logic and reason and just wearing them down with dishonesty, no matter how small the stakes are. It's not a communication problem. It's an honesty problem - you don't post with any. You misrepresent your opponents relentlessly, like the way you've misrepresented post 24, which I've quoted above.You're always so adamant about how right you are, and how you're an expert in whatever you're talking about, that you simply invent arguments to poke holes in, when you can't actually find any holes in what your opponent is saying.We're in an example of it, right now. It plays better of poor ol' Holmes is the victim of a guy who can't get over the past; thus, a post where I specifically said:

quote:

---

You're asking for some kind of "clean slate", but there really is no slate to clean.

---

is "reinterpreted" and referred to by you as a post that said "I'm going to dog you about our past forevermore", even though anybody at all can read it and see that's not what I said, at all.You misrepresent your opponents to make you look better - to play the harried victim, chased around by all these playground bullies and their personal attacks, when all they're really saying is "stop misrepresenting your opponents." When I say that you post in a way that is dishonest, I don't know how much more careful I can be about respecting the difference between characterizations of a post and imprecations against a person. I don't know you, Holmes. I don't know if you're a dishonest person or not. I've been very careful to avoid any attacks against you personally.But I simply won't refrain from criticizing the way in which you post, where you misrepresent people, ignore rebuttals, cite as "evidence" sources that actually contradict your position (and hope nobody clicks through to read them). I don't know, maybe you think all that behavior would add up to somebody who's probably not a very good person. I honestly don't think about it like that. If you think being criticized about your behavior, and by "behavior" I mean the things you write here on this forum, constitutes an attack on your person then I submit that you're simply being hypersensitive. (In which case the internet probably isn't for you.) I don't know how to ask a question, except directly. And I don't know how to object to bad behavior except directly, too. If that's too sharp an edge for you, again, that's hypersensitivity. God! How many times do I have to say it?

quote:

---

If I ever do have cause to complain, it'll be about the things you say from now on, I assure you.

---

Everything we've been arguing about is what you've been posting since you returned from outer space or wherever. The single time the past was brought up was by NJ, and he was curious. He wanted an example, so I provided one that I knew about.That was it. I haven't discussed it nor raised the subject. I couldn't be less interested in the past. It's the present and the future that concern me, your behavior in the present which has been abominable, and your future behavior, which you still have every opportunity in the world to change, not least of which because none of the Admins seem inclined to even read your posts. Just the one question. Are you going to abandon your technique of misrepresenting your opponents, as I have documented you doing lately?I'll leave you with precisely the same point you missed last time:

quote:

---

It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been.

---

Go forth and stop being dishonest and contrarian. If you can maintain that path, my objections will evaporate, and you'll have no more issue with me. I might even learn something from you, like I used to.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

You are correct that, unlike Rashomon, the posts are all there for people to read. Unfortunately that was the same for the project I was discussing which is littered with paper trails and even video evidence. Everyone has a different take. Same here.What you claim to see, I am telling you is not true. What I see you doing, apparently you believe is not true and would tell me is not true. When others tell you that they have reviewed the stuff here and do not see it your way, you begin slandering them. It really isn't your way or wrong.I don't get why this happens, but it happens.If you feel debate has ended, then try to repair a specific miscommunication (without assuming, or talking like, your opponent is trying to do something bad), or just drop it. I'm not sure why that wouldn't make sense.And as to one of your comments I don't feel harried or chased around, and I'm not trying to pretend that here. I feel like there are some specific people with some very specific communication problems, and I'm not going to deal with it. If real debate is desired then simply discuss an issue, instead of a person.Its that simple.If we manage to have non-serious conversation without anger from your side, then I will begin to answer questions from you on serious subjects. Keep it related only to the arguments, and if you feel a mistake has been made, POLITELY correct the error. I do make mistakes and it doesn't help to suggest it is something intentional.I will be civil with you in turn (which means I will be polite, even if I feel angry about something). If I see a personal attack, then discussion will be dropped for another cycle.This is how I will be working from now on. This is the last I'm going to say about it.I hope we can be civil.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

How can you continue to hold that position after what I've posted? How could you interpret my post 23 in the way that you've done? How could you assert a completely opposite meaning, and then say you're not misrepresenting me? More misrepresentation.Do you have a specific example of anything recent? I mean, you wouldn't be bringing up the past, now would you? Since you've expressed your desire to leave the past in the past, I mean, and I've agreed. It happens because the things you assert aren't true. The things you've asserted I've said are things I haven't said.It really is just that simple. It happens because you're doing it. I don't see how you can deny that you are after I've shown you that you are. How does that work, in your mind? Funny - those people are everybody you've disagreed with, everybody whom you've misrepresented.Look, Holmes, when so many people agree that you're being mendacious - I mean, don't pretend that it's just me; Nator, Mol, Brenna, Rrhain, and others I can't even remember have all accused you of precisely the same thing - doesn't it get a little ridiculous to deny it?When everybody around you disputes your contention that you're actually Napoleon Bonaparte, 18th-century military strategist, isn't there some point when a reasonable person should consider that they're wrong, no matter how obvious it must be that they're not? Holmes, I honestly can't predict what you'll construe as a "personal attack." But I simply can't allow your misrepresentations to go unchallenged, even if you don't realize that you're doing it. I can only hope that if I catch you out in enough of them, you'll begin to see the sense of what I've been telling you. As always, civility will be restored when you restore it. It's been in your power to establish civil discourse the whole time.

Just to let you know, I don't feel about everyone (or everyone I've disagreed with) as if they have communication problems. I get along with most people just fine. There are a few people I don't, that's it. And I don't take their comments seriously as I have my own idea of what they are doing when they make such accusations.But this is all besides the point. We'll see how it goes.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

What's your explanation for these "communication problems"? You don't speak English? They don't?Doesn't "communication problems" get untenable as an explanation when the people who supposedly have a hard time communicating communicate completely effectively with each other, and with others - with everybody but you, in fact?Brad McFall has communication problems. What you have is a misrepresentation problem.

I don't want to get dragged into this...but that was a good one.

'Course, you say this 'bout everyone .We can't all be deceitful and deluded, can we?

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]