Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Bob Badour wrote:
> erk wrote:
> [...]
> > I've read many of her posts, not least because the conversation that
> > surrounds them is always compelling. And I don't see what you see. I've
> > read things similar to this before, concerning Dawn, and I find her
> > civil and restrained - especially in view of what's typically slung at
> > her.
>
> Snake-oil salesmen and confidence men invariable do seem that way.
> That's how they separate lonely old widows from their life's savings.

Probably, but that's not what we were talking about.

> >>dawn wrote:
> >>
> >>>>... the RM-advocates have trashed ... even though they
> >>>>seemed to have ZERO emperical data to prove their point
>
> Empirically false. Others have provided mountains of empirical evidence.
> It is an insult to them for her to turn around and simply deny their
> efforts. I don't let the insult bother me--I simply note that engaging
> trolls like her is a waste of effort.

Yes, engaging trolls is a waste of effort.

However disappointing or disingenuous, I still don't take her reaction to presented evidence as an insult to the presenter (nor would I if I had presented it).

> >>>>... some on this list who seem to think they are
> >>>>all-knowing ...
>
> I agree with the statement. Dawn apparently thinks that way. However, I
> suggest she intended it as an insult to the all-knowing Erk, who knows
> no empirical evidence could possibly exist.

Not of the sort she seems to want, though I agree the definition of "empirical" has been molested in this discussion (by me too, mistakenly). I think there is ample empirical evidence; just not the type that she seems to want. I said "it doesn't exist" simply trying (once again) to dissuade her apparent desire for a database of reproducible statistical evidence, all factors accounted for.

> >>>>Lists can be defined in set theory too, by the
> >>>>way. There is nothing evil about them ...
>
> Erk, stop calling lists evil.

They're raping my sheep.

> so don't snow
> >>>>me with that ...
>
> And stop snowing her by calling lists evil. While you are at it, stop
> fucking sheep.

Do I have to leave the communist party and stop beating my wife too?

> Whatever the hang-up is, get over
> >>>>it.
>
> Yeah, get over the hang-up--there's nothing wrong with thinly-haired
> bipedal apes.

How did you know I was thinly-haired?

> It is time to ditch The Information Principle."
>
> While you are ditching that, don't forget to ditch intellectual honesty,
> empiricism, and pi. Why pi? I don't know, but let's ditch it.

And that avocado number. I hate 'em.

> > I don't see a single insult in here - again, unless your flesh is
> > phyllo.
>
> To feel much of anything as a result of the insult would imply thin
> skin. However, that doesn't make them any less insults.

I was judging feelings from the intensity and duration of others' reactions to her; I may have misjudged.

> You can say she's wrong (I don't agree with her much),
> > ignorant, blah blah blah, but not insulting. Sorry. That's just false,
> > however much I disagree with her.
>
> Whether one cares about the insult or feels anything in particular as a
> result of the insult is different from whether it is an insult in the
> first place.

True, although my implicit definition of "insult" is apparently more lax than yours and others'.

> >>Other choice insults hurled by Dawn include "rape[ists]",
> >>"terrorists", "blind", etc. So please Erk, do not support
> >>Dawn's lies.
> >
> > Were we talking about truth or insults?
>
> Erk, stop raping terrorists. How could you be so blind?

I only rape blind terrorists. And sheep. But not blind sheep.

> Different scopes. Dawn can be
> > and has been wrong about various things, and some arguments I find
> > compelling simply don't convince her at all.
>
> At this moment, you are exhibiting a surprising lack of intellectual
> honesty. Denial of an objective reality doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Thanks for saying it's surprising. But, RM student and advocate though I am, I can't classify her not being convinced as denial of objective reality.

> I don't think she lies,
>
> Either she lies or she is remarkably stupid or both. Does it matter which?

Sure, in most forums. For purposes of this discussion... not really.

> > although I think she misinterprets things about the RM, things I've
> > already spelled out elsewhere. All of the above is standard in debate,
> > right?
>
> All kinds of sophistry is rampant in the formal method of debate as a
> means of emotional persuasion. However, sophistry and emotion have no
> real use in the face of logical argument and theory.

I think proponents of logical argument need to recognize when sophistry is needed. I don't think virtues survive on their own merits simply because they're virtues. So if someone doesn't swallow an argument I find logical, I assume I need to approach it differently, or (most likely) that my written communications have sucked.

> Perhaps they're overblown, but she's
> > certainly not actually accusing anyone of rape or terrorist acts.
>
> Are you suggesting that morally equating someone to a rapist or
> terrorist is somehow not an insult unless it is an actual accusation of
> rape or terrorism?

I wasn't aware she'd made that moral equation as anything other than a defensive joke.

> >>I didn't drag her here! We all know she was lurking, losing
> >>the battle to hold back her rants and PICK-ax grinding.
> >
> > hahahahahahahaha
> >
> > I'm sorry, that's just funny. She said she was leaving, and you didn't
> > believe her; you invoked her name, she replied, and now you're accusing
> > her of having manipulated your mind to force you to do so?
>
> I don't see how you jumped to that last conclusion.

 I don't either; must have been a long day.

> > OK, yes, here she does insult you. I found it clever, and padded for
> > minimum discomfort, redness, swelling, and chafing.
>
> So, insinuating cowardice is an insult, but morally equating someone to
> a rapist is not? Am I correct in your interpretation of what constitutes
> an insult? Doesn't the moral equation insinuate cowardice?

I don't remember the details of the rape comment, and didn't feel like looking; I just don't think she meant it. If she did, it's certainly an insult. Even the insinuation of cowardice above is far more teasing than actual insult. And no, I don't have a hard-and-fast definition of the boundary between the two.

> > - erk
> > Fraud Without Number
>
> Do you like large numbers or small numbers? If you like large numbers, I
> nominate you for Avogadro's Number, and if you like small numbers, I
> nominate you for e, the natural base. Or do you prefer to remain without
> number? Like a "Minister without Portfolio" ?

Fraud e will do nicely, I think.

• Fraud e