Pike's ghost

António Pedro Marques · 30 Nov 2011, 18:16 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:16:39 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED66B85.4010002 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>
	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>
	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com>
	<4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com>
	<4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>	<4ED5064C.8000004 at gmail.com>
	<4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>	<4ED50C1A.2060103 at gmail.com>
	<4ED511BF.8050105 at gmail.com>	<4ED51769.7080001 at gmail.com>
	<4ED51CFB.7010209 at gmail.com>	<4ED51E51.4060809 at verizon.net>
	<4ED52922.5040503 at irit.fr>	<4ED52C8C.4030905 at gmail.com>
	<4ED52E63.9030005 at gmail.com>	<448AE28BD9904A3DA642DF4301BED5F4@Rover>	<CAJ8=rtjx+fSaMh7aLCxFWvhDKqSf2cOknPNtFvr8Eoat3tU3vg at mail.gmail.com>	<4F98B01F-80B3-468C-B393-F2EEC23FD781 at gmail.com>
	<4ED5605F.10807 at gmail.com> <4ED5737D.7050303 at gmail.com>
	<4ED65F8F.7000908 at gmail.com> <4ED66607.5060508 at gmail.com>
	<4ED66B85.4010002 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED67307.7060809 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (30-11-2011 17:44):
> I don't think you are recognizing the problem. The problem is that we
> have two people who are using quite different methods of interpretation
> and one of them is claiming that the other's is not valid or, at least,
> never valid unless the reading is first credentialed by his own
> interpretive methods.

I simply disagree that that's what we have here. Do I have the right? I'm
saying that B's view of B's interpretation as valid only comes into question
as a contrast to B's view of A's interpretation's as not valid. The issue
are the reasons why B thinks A's interpretation is not valid. If you think
the archives are full of theories challenged because they have simpler
alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread them. They are challenged
because they have problems, and the only way to go forward is to address
those problems. For instance, your time travel has the major unstated
problem that there appears to be no significant temporal displacement in the
certified instances of dream travel we have. On a first approach to that
problem, you adduce some discrepancies that seem to exist, such as the ages
of Horn's and Sinew's children. But that isn't very strong, so you've now
suggested that among other things Silk's 'suicide' occurred long before Horn
body's death on Green. You're reasoning, trying to find a way for your model
to work better. That is good. What isn't good is complaining that those who
see the exact same problem as you do are merely being obnoxious. You _do_
know that if a theory has problems they must be addressed, and saying that
it's all down to methods and readings only takes you so far.

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