- Perhaps an analogy would work: I'm a sprinter, Jay's a marathon man -- and, Jay challenges me to a Marathon while ignoring my challenge to him for a sprint.
No, there aren't different "kinds" of mathematical proof such that you can ignore basic errors in facts and logic and still succeed. You're still stuck on the "analytical" versus "holistic" argument, which amounts to little more than a veiled insult that your critics lack some particular magical mode of thought that somehow makes all your errors go away. You're not a "holistic" thinker. You're just wrong in ways that people with elementary understanding of math and logic can easily see.
As a matter of historical fact, I was a sprinter in high school. Today I run two businesses. You're a seventy-something-year-old retiree who admits he can't stay away from ISF. I took time out of my busy day to outline your failures at the most fundamental level. Yet somehow, in your golden years of retirement and amidst your addiction to this forum, you can't find a single hour to address them in the way your critics here want you to. This proves you're just here to perform, not to have a serious debate. You're frantically trying not to be dragged off the script that ends with Jabba being the hero of the Internet.
You haven't run a single sprint in this entire debate. As Dave Rogers notes, you dawdle at the starting line trying to get the officials to let you make up the rules. Then you boast about how well you're going to run the race and beg all the other contestants to just forfeit because the outcome is all but assured. You're finally being asked to run
at all, and you've admitted you can't do it. Your bluster is now plainly obvious.
I can answer his fatal flaws, but only one at a time, cause Jay will complain about my answer --
What a pathetic liar you are, Jabba. Despite my explicit instructions that you complete the entire set of answers in one post, you insisted on producing them one at a time in separate posts spread out over several days so that there could not be one single link to all of them. You insisted on festooning those answers with color-coded dialectics and detailed responses, again contrary to my express instructions.
How dare you sit there and try to blame the effects of your deliberate disobedience on me! The only responses I made to you regarding the answers you already gave was that they were not in the requested form. It is beyond insulting that you're trying to pin on me the consequences of
your flagrant and arrogant disregard.
and then, I'll need to answer his new complaint; etc.
No.
What I have been proposing for six months is exactly the opposite of what you seem to think I've asked for, and what you seem to think you should do. I put all the fatal flaws in a single post so that it would be an easy reference to your argument's problems at the high level. I specifically told you that what I was after was a breadth-first survey of your argument according to that list. And I specifically told you that this would be a contrast to your "depth-first" approach, whereby we descend to one sub-issue and argue it endlessly, and which we agreed had not been productive in five years of attempted debate. Moreover it has been pointed out that you use that immediate descent into detail in order to forestall a comprehensive examination of your proof.
Now you're literally trying to caution me about the consequences of
your typical approach, which I have specifically eschewed by asking you to address briefly all the fatal flaws in a single post. You're telling me that
I am giving you no choice but to continue on your obfuscatory course -- what a bald-faced lie. As if you could be any more insulting and arrogant, you're trying to claim credit for keeping us from going down that unproductive path, allegedly by ignoring me.
This is beyond shameful, Jabba. Either you have serious problems with basic reading comprehension, or you are not above deliberately lying over and over about what your critics have said and done. I simply cannot believe a grown man of supposedly advanced years would mount such a blatantly childish argument.
The challenge still stands, even if you have admitted you can't do it. One post, no lengthy quotes, no dialectics, no color-coding, no lengthy responses. Just all dozen or so fatal flaws addressed with one or two sentences each describing how you plan to address it in subsequent argumentation. It should take you no more than an hour, which affords around five minutes to each fatal flaw.
You can't do that simple task. And you can't even tell the truth about it.
