|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Introduction to Information | |||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: More hypocrisy from Crashfrog!!! Nobody said you had to respond to me either. Good form would have been for you to withdraw if you were going to be unable to refrain from using the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me specifically. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog attempts to plead innocent (as she always has done when she sets up strawmen or otherwise misrepresents me) I see. In your opinion, then, your writing is so clear and understandable that its impossible for it to be misunderstood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Good form would have been for you to withdraw if you were going to be unable to refrain from using the VULGAR insult ASSHOLE when referring to me. I didn't use it to refer to you, as anyone can see. Now who's distorting who? I realize now that it's going to be impossible for you not to project your own worst traits onto me. I guess there is no point in responding. I can only hope that the admins take action - on one or both of us as they see fit - to preserve the integrity of debate that until late had characterized this board. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
It sure was.
There was NO need for you to chop my sentence in half, cutting out a KEY part of it, leave off the ellipses - despite the requirement to use them, and disregard all of the surrounding context of the paragraph, and then "counter" me with something vastly different than what I talked about - you know, all the stuff you cut out. That's distortion. I called you on it - and your other one. In retaliation, you used the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Who are you trying to fool? Any honest and rational person will clearly see that you DID use the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me. From several posts on this page: http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....
quote: quote: quote: [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There was NO need for you to chop my sentence in half, cutting out a KEY part of it, leave off the ellipses - despite the requirement to use them, and disregard all of the surrounding context of the paragraph, and then "counter" me with something vastly different than what I talked about - you know, all the stuff you cut out. I didn't see the need to quote what wasn't relevant to my question. If you feel that what I left out addressed what I asked, well, I didn't see that it did. That's either my error or yours. It certainly wasn't a deception. I fail to see how it could be deceptive when the entirety of your post was not 3 messages prior, easily read by any.
In retaliation, you used the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me. Referring to your behavior: you assumed the worst rather than give the benefit of the doubt, like an adult would have done. Is there any reason you've attempted to shift the focus to me rather than address the insults you directed at Peter? I can think of a reason but I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all it's possible you've just made an oversight. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Referring to your behavior: you assumed the worst rather than give the benefit of the doubt, like an adult would have done.
I don't think that the term was necessary referring to behavior or not. When one says "behaving like an asshole" that is very close to calling someone an asshole, too close I think. Neither of you is making yourself look all that adult with this ongoing tirade between you. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
When one says "behaving like an asshole" that is very close to calling someone an asshole, too close I think. Well, that may be. I'm comfortable retracting that statement, then. However DNAunion's behavior is extremely bellicose and immature. And he has yet to address the statements he made towards Peter, who provided no such provocation.
either of you is making yourself look all that adult with this ongoing tirade between you. Well, the admins certainly show no signs of interest, so apparently it's fair game. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:Two. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I was, of course, referring to your modified explanation, in whichthe uncertainty of which of the remaining cards was selected remains maximum. Described in that way, uncertainty appears to remain completeregardless of guessing. Funnily enough, what I was pointing out was that your modifiedexplanation, to show how predictability wasn't related to uncertainty, actually shows the opposite. If you try to re-define predictability to mean something that it doesn't then shoe-horn that into your example, you also remove the reduction of uncertainty that you are trying to describe. In any case, at the end of my post, I suggested that should youwish to separate predictability from reduction in uncertainty then you should also stop using Shannon-Weaver style information analysis as evidence for information in DNA. That is, you have to drop your only substantive citation from the discussion. I also never claimed that was the only definition you were using,simply that it becomes inapplicable if you wish to say that predictability has nothing to do with uncertainty. Definition of prediction: I take prediction to mean somethinglike an informed/educated guess -- as I stated before. If you mean something different by it then please say what you take it to mean. quote: Since you are unable to answer it, what would be the point?
quote: Perhaps I have mis-understood your position on this. My understandingof 'everything is basically saying that information is reduction in uncertainty' is that information only has one form. Oh, and I didn't assert anything, since I provided a reasonedargument for my position on that issue -- perhaps you missed it. quote: Why? You are the one using that work to support your assertionthat DNA contains information. My understanding is that Schneider (and most other biologists)see 'information' as a useful modelling strategy, rather than a genuine feature of DNA. And I'm not suggesting cracking it open and pulling out a lump of information here, before you go off on one again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: How come you moan about people chopping your quotes short, andthen do it to other people. I explained the above, and hence was not asserting it, butsupporting my interpretation. That is, by stating that all information definition boil downto 'reduction in uncertainty' (they are the flip side(s??) of that coin), you are using only one defintion. You then say 'No I'm not' -- as usual with no support (or do youthink posting out-of-context quotations from college texts is support?) You are also using an 'algorithmic' information concept, whichis very different from reduction of uncertainty. quote: Well ... I do wear slip-ons
quote: See above -- oh and stating that this is MY interpretation of whatyou have said is agreeing that it's what I am saying rather than you. I agree. You say you are using multiple defintions of information, and that they all mean 'reduction in uncvertainty'. quote: Eh?? Different is different -- perhaps you are simply sayingthat you DO have a different interpretation, but that you are right and I am wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I thought we weren't supposed to put forward unsupported
assertions
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What does 'frickin' mean, anyway?
To be honest, while I appreciate the interest,insults along those lines don't phase me. I'm interested in the subjects on this site and even when faced with monemental egos and/or stupidity (not DNAunion before s/he starts) I don't comment on that -- it's non-productive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm interested in the subjects on this site and even when faced with monemental egos and/or stupidity (not DNAunion before s/he starts) I don't comment on that -- it's non-productive. I had a sense already that you were a bigger man than to respond to insults. I may not be. DU explained what he found objectionable about my behavior but he hasn't come close to explaining what it is about you that he finds insult-worthy, and I don't like the idea of boorish behavior going unchallenged on the board. But apparently I could shoot off a flare and not attract admin attention to this stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Considering some admin interventions I have seen it
is a little odd, but ....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024