- Good. I'll go back to your objections in #827.
No, that was not the assignment. Just because you have purposely ignored
this list for six months does not make it moot. Fully five of the fatal flaws in that list relate to what you've posted in the past 72 hours, and all of them relate to your most recent summary. You know that list exists. You have expressly refused to address it. In any normal debate, that would be as good as a concession. It only fails in this case to have the appropriate effect because of your rude obstinacy, which I am endeavoring to correct.
I have already made my case that you are not arguing here in good faith. You have not seen fit to address or rebut that case in any way, so it stands unchallenged -- you are not to be given the benefit of the doubt. You have assured us that the rest of your argument falls into place if but one or two items can be overcome. I have shown evidence that this is not so, and your assurance over and above that evidence is therefore not to be trusted. It is therefore incumbent upon you to show that you have a plan to fix your entire argument.
Further, it is abundantly evident that you insist on a depth-first strategy in order to bog down the discussion in irrelevant detail. Several of your critics here have expressed a desire not to repeat the same unproductive exercise
ad nauseam. You yourself have admitted it is unproductive, only in your case you have tried to blame its inefficacy on your critics. Either way, it is clear that repeating the depth-first approach will not resolve the debate. Therefore we are trying a breadth-first approach to see if it will succeed in making any progress where your strategy has (by your own admission) failed.
You claim to hold a PhD. I doubt that claim very much, but if we take it as read that you do have such a degree, then it cannot have been conferred upon you except that you passed an oral defense of your dissertation. Having endured, officiated, and participated in several such defenses, I can bring up a salient point. A defense consists of the candidate being asked questions by the faculty and students of the relevant college. A faculty member -- typically the candidate's committee chair -- officiates. Since the defense is a time-bounded activity, the principal role of the officiator is to cut off lines of questioning that bore too deeply for too long at the expense of a more comprehensive breadth of questioning from all comers. This is a time-honored format of academic debate. You have presented your thesis and are now engaged in a defense of it. It seems untoward that you are abandoning the standard method of academic defense and instead embracing a technique aimed more at casting off your critics by attrition. Did that work for you in college?
Now I told you I was finished fooling around with you. You have begged far too much from the patience of honest people whose contributions you have co-opted for your own selfish purposes.
For each of the fatal flaws in the post linked above, please provide one or two sentences describing how your final argument, if any, will overcome it. This should take you no more than an hour and should comprise a single post. Then when we are convinced you are serious and have a serious argument, we can proceed with the detailed presentation of your claim according to the individual justifications you will have laid out.
I expect you will not comply, and that you will invent some excuse why you are justified in your non-compliance. None is valid. You have been fairly challenged across the entire landscape of your claim, and you have declined to answer after six months of almost daily reminders. That constitutes, effectively, a concession of your claim and any of your critics would be justified in considering it conceded.
