Dionysus

António Pedro Marques · 08 Dec 2010, 15:46 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:46:53 +0000
Subject: (urth) Dionysus
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W8D10A4A244B554CE29B81CF2D0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W8D10A4A244B554CE29B81CF2D0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4CFFA86D.2060604 at gmail.com>

Lee Berman wrote (08-12-2010 08:43):
> Gerry Quinn-
>> I consider the argument: "An alien has been shown to be a shapeshifter;
>> Fr. Inire is an alien; Therefore Fr. inire is a shapeshifter" to be
>> invalid.  Do you see why?
>
> Yes, I do. This is a good example of winning an argument with yourself.
> First, yikes! shades of Monty Python! It is a false assumption that every
> post on this board represents somebody who is looking for an argument.

'Argument' has a number of meanings in english. One of them, and clearly the
one intended here, is 'reasoning'.

> Moving on, Borksi or Ryan or I might propose a solution or pattern or way
> of thinking which solves the puzzle for us or helps overcome the
> cognitive distress. Again this should not be taken as an open invitation
> to argue.  You invalidate a person by telling them, "No that's not a
> solution to your problem/puzzle." when they have just told you that it
> is.

So what exactly do you expect from others? They're welcome to help you lay
bricks, but not to point out that you're building over quicksand or that
your mortar doesn't hold?

I can't believe any of you are unfamiliar with the importance of 
falsifiability. Falsifiability here is the difference between your 
theories/solutions/patterns being about Gene Wolfe's work, and their being 
about yourselves.

I also don't think that your way of reasoning here is similar to either 
Borski's or Ryan's, so why bring them in?

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net