PDA

View Full Version : KB vs MS and DR pointless flamewar simul (split from God/SOH?)



PHAT
10-05-2004, 10:44 AM
Until you even make some attempt to land a coherent point you give me no reason to [broarden my norizons].

I would have thought that not looking like an ignoramous would by it self, be sufficient reason broarden one's horizons. I s'pose you wish to stay in the bliss of ignorance.


In that case you should have no trouble blowing my arguments out of the water using actual evidence rather than hand-waving and drivel, but instead ...

This is a BB convo, not a scholarly discourse. You are obsessive about evidence when a mere say so, should suffice for generalisations. When a specific point is made, then, a reference could be asked for. That you do not want to contribute to understanding, at least quit you pedantic bullshit.

Take this as a warning, I will adopt a zero tolerance to your making unrefenced statements. You will find yourself doing 40 hours per week to just staying in the convo. I do n ot want to do so - I don't want to be a dick like you - but a taste of your own medicine might be enough to shut you the f*** up.


Out of curiosity, what do you know about the doctrine of seperation of powers?

I know enough explain it, and enough to know that you are generating a red herring. :p

Trent Parker
10-05-2004, 03:08 PM
two (posts) for two (threads). Now now sweeney. nice now. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2004, 05:52 PM
I would have thought that not looking like an ignoramous would by it self, be sufficient reason broarden one's horizons. I s'pose you wish to stay in the bliss of ignorance.

I won't look like an ignoramus until you prove that there are things I should be taking into account, but am ignoring.


This is a BB convo, not a scholarly discourse.

Actually if I was discussing this topic with someone IRL I would be saying a lot of the same things. In a different manner, to be sure, but if someone said something about the centrality of religion as if it were true and I thought the issue in question was genuinely up for grabs, I'd challenge it. Of course, this depends on the social context. In some cases it may not be worth the bother, for all kinds of reasons.


You are obsessive about evidence when a mere say so, should suffice for generalisations.

Whose say so? One of my problems with the way David raises this stuff is that he uses arguments from authority to support his case but it's often not clear whether what he's saying is that authority's view or what he thinks that authority is saying.


When a specific point is made, then, a reference could be asked for.

This is a large proportion of what I have been doing - questioning the basis of specific "points" that have been made.


That you do not want to contribute to understanding, at least quit you pedantic bullshit.

I consider the demolition of an unsubstantiated falsehood to be a contribution to understanding as valid as any other.


Take this as a warning, I will adopt a zero tolerance to your making unrefenced statements.

If you did that on my definition of "tolerance", you would very soon find yourself in jail. :D As it happens, I have not been calling for all dodgy statements to be referenced, rather I've been asking for them to be substantiated with evidence of some kind or at least some kind of plausible supporting argument. A claim isn't proven just because you can find a book written by an expert that includes it.


You will find yourself doing 40 hours per week to just staying in the convo.

Bring it on, sunshine, I have a lot of spare time at the moment. You'll probably take it to a pedantic extreme and try making me substantiate statements that everyone here accepts uncontroversially, thus making it clear that you are trolling and getting yourself ridiculed for really being frivolous and vexatious. Even in academia such conduct is generally looked down upon and ignored, in my experience.

In contrast, I don't think any of my requests for evidence on this thread have been unreasonable, nor that any of the things that I have disputed are really so obvious that they should be accepted without debate in any forum. If someone wants to simply state them without evidence that's up to them - I will simply explain why they have not convinced me. When I state things without evidence you are free to do the same.


I know enough explain it, and enough to know that you are generating a red herring. :p

I was just trying to work out whether your analogy was completely invalid or not.

I will take your word for it and assume the former.

PHAT
10-05-2004, 06:58 PM
As it happens, I have not been calling for all dodgy statements to be referenced, rather I've been asking for them to be substantiated with evidence of some kind ...

And you cannot admit to being a pedant :hmm:



A claim isn't proven just because you can find a book written by an expert that includes it.


Are you seriously suggesting that we on the BB should take it upon ourselves to review the experts in field which we ourselves are not experts? :lol:

If you are such an egomaniac that you must reject expert opinion when it challenges your schema, you are not worth the keystrokes.:hand:

PHAT
10-05-2004, 07:08 PM
It's amusing that Matt should resort to such an obvious form of blackmail, but subtlety was never his strong suit. :rolleyes:

First, I am not blackmailing you, it is called threatening you with Kevenesk pedantry.

And pellucid purpose is not your strong suit.

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2004, 07:12 PM
And you cannot admit to being a pedant :hmm:

Actually I'm so pedantic that I'll correct the above to point out that I am pedantic at times (this sentence being one of them) but also I will, not so pedantically, add that I am not so pedantic that everything I say can be assumed to be pedantic. :owned: Happy now?


Are you seriously suggesting that we on the BB should take it upon ourselves to review the experts in field which we ourselves are not experts? :lol:

Not necessarily, more just suggesting that we cannot assume something to be true solely because an expert has said it. In many cases experts contradict each other - in such cases one or both must be less than entirely correct.


If you are such an egomaniac that you must reject expert opinion when it challenges your schema, you are not worth the keystrokes.:hand:

I am not such an egomaniac, so I must be some other kind. :hmm:

I don't reject expert opinion in such cases; rather I examine it to see if the arguments it is based on contain any holes obvious even to a generalist, and also I compare it with other arguments by other experts on the same issue, and attempt to make sense of the resulting debate. Often all I can conclude is that expert opinion on the matter varies.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2004, 07:12 PM
And pellucid purpose is not your strong suit.
Well pellucid purpose certainly isnt your strong point based on some of your rantings in the past. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2004, 07:26 PM
First, I am not blackmailing you

Don't deny it, you gutless liar. You're saying that if I don't stop questioning people's evidence you'll attempt to waste my time with your inane little charade.


, it is called threatening you with Kevenesk pedantry.

No, you are threatening to impose a straw-man pedantry on me and pretend that it resembles my reasonable calls for evidence on points genuinely open to debate. Though judging by your sad misspelling and that grotesque suffix error there, your skill in what you threaten is sadly deficient anyway, so your attempts to be pedantic will be very funny. Perhaps I will give you a score out of ten for each, and notes on how you can improve? :whistle:


And pellucid purpose is not your strong suit.

It isn't meant to be. Nice obscure word by the way, a pity that I already knew it.

PHAT
10-05-2004, 10:54 PM
Actually I'm so pedantic that I'll correct the above to point out that I am pedantic at times (this sentence being one of them) but also I will, not so pedantically, add that I am not so pedantic that everything I say can be assumed to be pedantic. :owned: Happy now?

no




Not necessarily, more just suggesting that we cannot assume something to be true solely because an expert has said it. In many cases experts contradict each other - in such cases one or both must be less than entirely correct.

And you usually have not got the spine to choose a side.



I don't reject expert opinion in such cases; rather I examine it to see if the arguments it is based on contain any holes obvious even to a generalist ...

The holes you find are not usually ones in logic, they are usually a misinterpretation due to the holes in your knowledge base.


... and also I compare it with other arguments by other experts on the same issue, and attempt to make sense of the resulting debate. Often all I can conclude is that expert opinion on the matter varies.

And by your own admission, you usually have not got the spine to choose a side, to make a decission, to go forward even though there is incomplete knowledge. Your insistance on water-tight argument results in functional paralysis. For f*** sake, just be a man who stands for SOMETHING instead of a boy who sits on philosophy.

PHAT
10-05-2004, 10:55 PM
Well pellucid purpose certainly isnt your strong point based on some of your rantings in the past. :whistle:
FO

PHAT
10-05-2004, 11:10 PM
Don't deny it [blackmail], you gutless liar. You're saying that if I don't stop questioning people's evidence you'll attempt to waste my time with your inane little charade.

Blackmail n. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

Few things are more pathetic as a pedant whose word comprehension is akin to a Year 1 ESL student. Although, the quote below...


Though judging by your sad misspelling and that grotesque suffix error there,...

:hmm: ... shows that you are adroit at at least one of those few things that are more pathetic - a netizen spelling cop. :naughty:

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2004, 11:11 PM
FO
Ah as eloquent as ever. :hand:

PHAT
10-05-2004, 11:14 PM
Ah as eloquent as ever. :hand:

I would prefer to call it succinct. :p

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2004, 11:19 PM
I would prefer to call it succinct. :p
Perhaps, but I would have thought you would have realised by now that such bullying and intimidatory responses wont work on me. :p

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 12:20 AM
Blackmail n. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

:hmm: Did you consider comparing dictionaries? Mine gives that as meaning number 1 and also simply "2.the use of threats or moral pressure". So there.

As it happens, you have to your eternal debit used a rather deluded form of sense 1 in the past as well ... except that you only thought what you had to reveal would discredit me. :p


Few things are more pathetic as a pedant whose word comprehension is akin to a Year 1 ESL student.

Few indeed, but one of them is Matthew Sweeney trying to claim I am such a person when he is either unable to read past 1 in the dictionary or else ventures into definitional catfights without adequate resources.


:hmm: ... shows that you are adroit at at least one of those few things that are more pathetic - a netizen spelling cop. :naughty:

Normally I would agree, but in this case there are three defences - 1. relevance to your spurious claims of being a skillful pedant; 2.appropriate concomitant response to your childish threats; 3.entertainment value. So why don't you sit down and have a cuppa with this little guy here: :hand:

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 01:00 AM
And you usually have not got the spine to choose a side.

As a scientist you should know that sometimes scientists need to have the courage to say "I don't know", and often that takes a lot more guts than just declaring one side right when the question really hasn't been decided.

Of course if I did take a side you would be berating me for putting my intellectual predilections above a rational assessment of the expert evidence. Just you try denying it.


The holes you find are not usually ones in logic, they are usually a misinterpretation due to the holes in your knowledge base.

The only hole in my knowledge base right now concerns whether the above statement is a fabrication or merely a delusion. If you had any examples of me making such an error, I'm sure you would have used them.


And by your own admission, you usually have not got the spine to choose a side, to make a decission, to go forward even though there is incomplete knowledge. Your insistance on water-tight argument results in functional paralysis.

Thus speaks the person whose postings on this thread epitomise disfunctional paralysis. This fine phrase reflects not only your lack of debating skill, but also the social impact of your strange combo of conservative tendencies and bad-boy mannerisms, and even the condition in which you sometimes post. :clap: :clap: :clap:

You have a pathetic memory and can't see a simple trap until it snaps your foot off. Not far back on this thread you were saying I was too ready to support "social experiments" in the absence of complete knowledge. You were even hinting there was no social experiment I would not support (a line of enquiry which ground to a shuddering sheepish halt as soon as I provided one). Now you're saying I'm too unwilling to "go forward even though there is incomplete knowledge". Huhhhhhhhhhh? On major social issues you are frequently far more change-averse than I am. It's especially ironic that much of my scepticism is directed to precisely those cliches that you throw up whenever you want to malign social change that falls outside your comfort zone. If anyone else was that risk-averse you'd be trying to tell them what mental disorders they had.

Oh, and whatever happened to the pedantry? You were going to demonstrate your magnificent skills in this area, as I recall. Get on with it, the crowd gather, they are eager to learn. :lol:


For f*** sake, just be a man who stands for SOMETHING instead of a boy who sits on philosophy.

Or a drunk who rolls in the gutter clutching for two mutually incompatible positions at the same time? :hmm:

Cat
11-05-2004, 03:01 PM
Matt, I have to agree with KB that responding to anti-social behaviour by mimicking that behavoiur is an unlikely strategy for success, as these individuals are striving for approval and even a negative response is seen as a reward. From my experience working with other children, it would be more effective to simply ignore offending behaviour. When appropriate modes of behaviour are displayed, then encouragement like 'well done KB', or 'bless my cotton socks' reinforces that behaviour and sends a clear and positive signal that this behaviour was appropropriate.

PHAT
11-05-2004, 05:00 PM
As a scientist you should know that sometimes scientists need to have the courage to say "I don't know", and often that takes a lot more guts than just declaring one side right when the question really hasn't been decided.

Dead right. I agree. But this is not science, this is a BB.


Of course if I did take a side you would be berating me for putting my intellectual predilections above a rational assessment of the expert evidence. Just you try denying it. I will half deny it. It would depend on which side you took - the expert's or your own.




The only hole in my knowledge base right now concerns whether the above statement is a fabrication or merely a delusion. If you had any examples of me making such an error, I'm sure you would have used them.

I submit the whole Over-rated Juniors thread.




You have a pathetic memory and can't see a simple trap until it snaps your foot off. Not far back on this thread you were saying I was too ready to support "social experiments" in the absence of complete knowledge. You were even hinting there was no social experiment I would not support ...

Fully unfair criticism. We rarely have either 100% or 0% knowledge. Sometimes, we have to make a move some time not. Depending on a risk-benefit analysis we decide to do X or not. Your Analysis is ... ummm ... absent. You would allow homosexual couples to adopt children but won't give juniors a rating bonus for growing hair in their groin. :owned:


On major social issues you are frequently far more change-averse than I am. It's especially ironic that much of my scepticism is directed to precisely those cliches that you throw up whenever you want to malign social change that falls outside your comfort zone. If anyone else was that risk-averse you'd be trying to tell them what mental disorders they had.

I am afraid that you are confusing my risk aversion with my benefit appreciation. Perhaps I have mistaken your risk aversion for your benefit unappreciation.


Oh, and whatever happened to the pedantry? You were going to demonstrate your magnificent skills in this area, as I recall. Get on with it, the crowd gather, they are eager to learn. :lol:

I challenge you to find where I have boasted of pedant skills. Cannot? Then don't misrepressent what I threatened.




Or a drunk who rolls in the gutter clutching for two mutually incompatible positions at the same time?

1. Find one person in chess who has seen me pissed. No?
2. Deterine the % of post I have made pissed - about 0.5%. BTW they will all be at a "home from a party" time of night.
3. Name one person you know who has no incompatable positions.

You try slandering me, but are only pandering to your own ego.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2004, 05:07 PM
I submit the whole Over-rated Juniors thread.
I guess we all missed that particular thread. :whistle:

PHAT
11-05-2004, 05:17 PM
:hmm: Did you consider comparing dictionaries? Mine gives that as meaning number 1 and also simply "2.the use of threats or moral pressure". So there.

As it happens, you have to your eternal debit used a rather deluded form of sense 1 in the past as well ... except that you only thought what you had to reveal would discredit me. :p

Few indeed, but one of them is Matthew Sweeney trying to claim I am such a person when he is either unable to read past 1 in the dictionary or else ventures into definitional catfights without adequate resources.



Well, mate, my dictionaries out shoot you 4:1 on the meaning of "blackmail." So shut your gapping maw.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blackmail




Normally I would agree, but in this case there are three defences - 1. relevance to your spurious claims of being a skillful pedant; 2.appropriate concomitant response to your childish threats; 3.entertainment value. So why don't you sit down and have a cuppa with this little guy here: :hand:

1. Find that claim and post it.
2. A response that wil have nill effect on my threat
3. OK :lol:
4. The penis on your forehead drinks tea?

Rincewind
11-05-2004, 05:25 PM
I guess we all missed that particular thread. :whistle:

Don't worry, it was over-rated. ;)

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 06:16 PM
Dead right. I agree. But this is not science, this is a BB.

Doesn't matter. I'm afraid to inform you that the laws of the universe don't contort themselves to support different standards of truth and evidence just so you and your mate (I was going to say mates but your tribe appears to have dwindled) can get away with sloppy arguing in a public forum.


I will half deny it. It would depend on which side you took - the expert's or your own.

You could have actually read what I wrote. I was talking about a case in which there were experts on both sides - as is often the case with a contentious issue - and I took one of those sides.


I submit the whole Over-rated Juniors thread.

As Bill has pointed out, only on a thread that does not actually exist would I do what you've suggested. :owned:

So I'll assume you meant "under-rated juniors". On no instance on that thread did I challenge the view of any expert on anything. All I asserted was that expert findings in areas unrelated to chess could not necessarily be applied to chess. No one produced any expert studies to demonstrate otherwise, therefore your submission is nonsense. What a surprise. You're just dishing out unsubstantiated trash as usual without giving a fig about its validity. Why don't you just try playing random aggressive moves without the slightest thought to their soundness in your next chess game as well? Or is that what already happens? :wall:


Fully unfair criticism.

Oh, diddums. Here's Sweeney, who makes fully unfair criticisms in the vast majority of his adversarial posts, only rarely apologising or retracting them even when they are comprehensively demolished, off sooking because his point of view has been challenged. I haven't even read your challenge yet, but I'm betting it will be pathetic ...


We rarely have either 100% or 0% knowledge. Sometimes, we have to make a move some time not. Depending on a risk-benefit analysis we decide to do X or not. Your Analysis is ... ummm ... absent.

No, you just don't see it because you don't share my high estimation of the value of human liberty. My standard is that if there is a significant gain in human liberty then there is an onus on the opposition to demonstrate likely or definite net losses in other areas that are so unacceptably severe that that liberty should be obstructed. Of course, this is a subjective matter - an obsessive conservative, communitarian or (early) utilitarian might insist that liberty had no net benefit or that that benefit depended on the gain to the community, not just the individual. Equally, however, an extreme libertarian might insist that virtually no argument for obstructing such a liberty was sufficient, no matter how robust the evidence.


You would allow homosexual couples to adopt children but won't give juniors a rating bonus for growing hair in their groin. :owned:

I would support giving juniors such a bonus if (i) it was proven to increase predictive efficiency of the system without severe inflation or a net increase in the risk or severity of severe overshooting and (ii) it was cleared by expert legal opinion as unquestionably legal. The onus is on the supporters of such a bonus to demonstrate (i). Hitherto they have failed miserably.


I am afraid that you are confusing my risk aversion with my benefit appreciation. Perhaps I have mistaken your risk aversion for your benefit unappreciation.

No, see above. You do not appear to much appreciate the benefits, both direct and indirect, of people being allowed to do what they like, within reason. In cases where you have labelled me as risk-averse, I have indeed not appreciated any benefits of your proposals - because there have not been net benefits robust enough to appreciate. In the case of social issues, the difference comes partly from a difference in values between us, and partly from you clutching at conservative straws and factoids. In the case of chess issues, our values are pretty much shared but your factual claims don't cut the empirical mustard.


I challenge you to find where I have boasted of pedant skills. Cannot? Then don't misrepressent what I threatened.

1. You threatened me with "Kevenesk [sicx2] pedantry". It has been clear from past discussions that you have a very high estimation of my abilities in this area.
2. You threatened to keep me going for 40 hrs a week by challenging everything.

Both of these imply that you think you are good at being an obstructive pedant. It is more likely that you would keep me going for 40 hrs a week counting all the ways in which you and your threats are a joke.


1. Find one person in chess who has seen me pissed. No?
2. Deterine the % of post I have made pissed - about 0.5%. BTW they will all be at a "home from a party" time of night.
3. Name one person you know who has no incompatable positions.

You try slandering me, but are only pandering to your own ego.

3. = red herring, my point is that you contradict yourself on an extremely regular basis in your futile desire to land points against me.

As for 1 and 2, obviously my reference to drunks was intended analogically and to be taken no more seriously than your amusingly stupid description of someone less than a decade younger than you and, at worst, no more immature, as a "boy". That you huffed and puffed about being slandered just proves that, as always, you can dish the trash out but you can't take it.

Oh and lift your game. It's not slander, it's libel, and it only applies to people who have reputations to lose, not common garden trolls like you. :lol: Your ill-advised excursion into the realms of pedantry is proving to be such a wonderful success. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 06:28 PM
Matt, I have to agree with KB that responding to anti-social behaviour by mimicking that behavoiur is an unlikely strategy for success, as these individuals are striving for approval and even a negative response is seen as a reward.

I'm not anti-social, I'm just anti-crap. :boohoo:

Out of curiosity, where did I say that tit-for-tat tactics tend not to work? I may have said something distantly similar to that but I'm a bit puzzled by your putting those words into my mouth. The only case where I remember offhand making such a reference was the very extreme case of civilian-killing in response to civilian-killing. Hardly a general statement of principle. :hmm:


From my experience working with other children, it would be more effective to simply ignore offending behaviour. When appropriate modes of behaviour are displayed, then encouragement like 'well done KB', or 'bless my cotton socks' reinforces that behaviour and sends a clear and positive signal that this behaviour was appropropriate.














(the space above left deliberately blank)

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 07:01 PM
Well, mate, my dictionaries out shoot you 4:1 on the meaning of "blackmail." So shut your gapping maw.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blackmail

Digging in on this one may place you in goosemaster norm territory if continued:

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=rescb&w=blackmail

I clicked on all the definitions listed. Of the 20 listed, 2 did not work. Of the remaining 18, 12 contained material supporting my usage while 6 did not. The 12 supporting my usage did, however, include one where the usage was supported as a verb but not a noun, one (yours) which compiled definitions where one supported it but others didn't, and one where the usage was supported in the full dictionary but not the concise. In one of the 6 cases not containing my usage, the reason was solely that the use of the word was confined by that source to money.

Furthermore I would assume (unless you can, for instance, demonstrate a preponderance of expert opinion to the contrary) that a dictionary containing a more extensive range of definitions of a word is more likely to be more comprehensive and hence superior. The dictionary that included my meaning in its expanded section but not its concise section is an example of this.

Finally if you have not encountered my usage of "blackmail" extremely commonly before I would have to wonder precisely what beverage container you have been hiding under. Now please try to respond to this point without falling for the obvious trap.


1. Find that claim and post it.

See post above.


2. A response that wil have nill effect on my threat

Glad to hear it because your threat has already been shown up as laughably ineffectual bluster as you are hopelessly out of your league; you are encouraged to attempt to fulfill it. :lol:


4. The penis on your forehead drinks tea?

Whaaaaaaa? Considering my analogical reference to your likely physical location, I think it's high time your mind had an out-of-body experience. :eek:

Cat
11-05-2004, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]I'm not anti-social, I'm just anti-crap. :boohoo:

Out of curiosity, where did I say that tit-for-tat tactics tend not to work? I may have said something distantly similar to that but I'm a bit puzzled by your putting those words into my mouth. The only case where I remember offhand making such a reference was the very extreme case of civilian-killing in response to civilian-killing. Hardly a general statement of principle. :hmm:

I would say it was the general thrust of your communication that gave that particular impression, Aunty Crap.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2004, 08:22 PM
I would say it was the general thrust of your communication that gave that particular impression

(EDIT: fix quote tag)

No, what gave you that impression was your desperation to read into my words whatever you wanted to see there, irrespective of whether there was any foundation for that reading or not. Either that or you're just spouting random nonsense again. Either way, you're too bad a debater to back down when busted.

Until I encountered you and your interpretation skills, I thought it was impossible to fail a Rorschach test.