Pike's ghost

James Wynn · 25 Nov 2011, 19:15 · from 2011-November.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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:15:48 -0600
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <004c01ccaba4$fc6893c0$ddd04a0c@rclackey>
References: <CAM3O41KHLfi5D7SqNJs_my0nqXRzTuxhDffSsvBFXPFa-xL1WA at mail.gmail.com><4ECC05AB.2050403 at gmail.com><4ECC0DF2.1070100 at gmail.com><003d01cca9a1$dcbb6840$edcd4a0c@rclackey><C2B63DED-7C50-4950-8C6C-70A27A80F331 at gmail.com><5181D8CCAB8C4E6094A57C9B166A6EF8@Rover><4ECD1A8F.8000903 at gmail.com><D62F532F3A6D48318CB9270A11886AE8@Rover><4ECD2B22.30703 at gmail.com><015401ccaa2c$737da9c0$c2d14a0c@rclackey><4ECD73FE.1060004 at gmail.com><00bf01ccaa79$52d112a0$7ecd4a0c@rclackey>
	<4ECFC869.5010804 at gmail.com>
	<004c01ccaba4$fc6893c0$ddd04a0c@rclackey>
Message-ID: <4ECFE964.8030507 at gmail.com>

>
> Roy C. Lackey wrote:
> I don't see how you could have read my paragraph and come to the conclusion
> that I thought Pas was in Oreb at all. I said that I didn't believe it,
> period.

Then why did you offer that as your ONLY explanation for why the second 
Oreb was there?
I know you said you didn't believe it Pas was possessing Oreb.
That's why I said you were arguing with yourself.
You've managed to even confuse yourself.

> You are the one who brought up the possession of Oreb by Pas. I carried the
> thought experiment a step further.

No you didn't. Rather than deal with a problem for which you have no 
answer, you decided to attempt a mocking BS answer. But what it revealed 
is that you have never really thought about the real problem of the 
second Oreb because it would suggest answers you aren't comfortable with.

What concerns me is that maybe  this means your entire refutation has 
Refuting as its only purpose. The answer is irrelevant as long as it the 
conclusion does not fall within predetermined ranges. I don't see you as 
my enemy, Roy. I'm not trying to beat you.

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