williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/15/85)
Well, Rich, I guess you *CAN* argue your way out of a paper bag. However, I'm afraid I'm not interested in discovering you intellectual superiority. You can argue and assure yourself that none of what we have been trying to tell you for months exists, and you can feel confident in your own mind that you understand and can describe objective reality, but from what I can see, you have learned nothing. I was not questioning the theories you presented, and as a matter of fact, I think that they hold a certain amount of validity, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK. I just think you're trying to alter the language to promote YOURSELF. In other words, you represent someone with a small idea, AND A BIG MOUTH. I guess that any sort of concession is just too hard a blow to your ego. We were not discussing ideals or theories anymore, we were talking about the fundamental limits of communication, and you are a prime example of someone who has allowed communication to break down. One of your disclaimers states that public consensus dictates what reality is, well, try this one, PUBLIC CONSENSUS DETERMINES LANGUAGE. All you have really accomplished is to isolate yourself from everyone else. I no longer know what you're talking about. I try to be flexible, and you try to exploit it. My patience has run out. John Williams I fail to understand why you use the key to the universe to lock yourself in a cage.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
> Well, Rich, I guess you *CAN* argue your way out of a paper bag. > > However, I'm afraid I'm not interested in discovering you intellectual > superiority. You can argue and assure yourself that none of what we > have been trying to tell you for months exists, and you can feel > confident in your own mind that you understand and can describe > objective reality, but from what I can see, you have learned nothing. Maybe I have a good reason for not being convinced: maybe your arguments just aren't that good. Or maybe mine aren't. But if *that's* true, why has this discussion been reduced to twenty articles talking about ME rather than about the issues and answering the open questions? > I was not questioning the theories you presented, and as a matter > of fact, I think that they hold a certain amount of validity, I UNDERSTAND > WHAT YOU THINK. I just think you're trying to alter the language to > promote YOURSELF. In what way am I "altering the language"? By saying "now, instead of its old definition, free will now means this: ..."? That wudn't me who said that. > In other words, you represent someone with a small idea, > > AND A BIG MOUTH. This statement having come from John Williams, I'm not sure whether I should cower in fear or say "It takes one to know one". Again, I'm sorry for typing fast. One of my deepest faults. I'll correct it by chopping my fingers off, if it pleases you. That's what I'm here for. > I guess that any sort of concession is just too hard a blow > to your ego. What would you like me to concede? For what reason? > We were not discussing ideals or theories anymore, we > were talking about the fundamental limits of communication, and you > are a prime example of someone who has allowed communication to > break down. Yeah, by insisting that words be used in the way defined by the users of the language and not altered for convenience. Did you all read the excerpt I posted from Gardner's "Annotated Alice"? Did you care to state a contrary opinion? I thought not. It's not just MY opinion. If you don't like it, don't get off saying "it's Rosen's 'intransigence' we don't like". > One of your disclaimers states that public consensus > dictates what reality is, well, try this one, PUBLIC CONSENSUS DETERMINES > LANGUAGE. I thought I just said that. Are the free will fanatics staging a coup on the English language without telling the rest of us who use words in a particular way? (By the way, that signature line about popular consensus was a paradoxical joke of sorts.) > All you have really accomplished is to isolate yourself from > everyone else. I no longer know what you're talking about. YOU don't know what I'm talking about, therefore *I've* isolated myself? If you really don't know what I'm talking about, then why are you telling me how wrong my position is? Why aren't you asking questions for clarification? Could it be that those who want free will (not exactly a scientific way to go about learning, but then...) don't want clarification? > I try to be > flexible, and you try to exploit it. My patience has run out. YOUR patience? Imagine this article written to you twenty times by twenty people. Then tell me about patience. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr