Skepticism and The Normal

[Dean Morrison]

Okay Bubblefish/TM

Back to that LEGAL ACTION we were discussing:

You suggested Ben had to remove remarks (presumably made by myself) from his site.

'Fraid not.. The "train wreck" thread is still intact in all it's glory:

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1271&start=45&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

and this is what Ben had to say to me:

you're a bunch of total idiots.

dean: i shouldn't have to read through everything you write, and i don;t have time to read through everything you write, here or previously, to see if it is libellous, i have no idea if it has been. more importantly, what you have to say on the subject really isn't very edifying or interesting, is it?

He was tired and grumpy (it was three in the morning) - so he banned me along with Wooly-Bully who was stirring things up in the first place.

If Ben had bothered to read my threads he could have seen for himself that I said nothing libelous. None of my posts has ever been removed - they're still there for all to see.

That said I can't blame him for not reading them - I was the most prolific poster on his board - it would have taken ages.

So do I get an apology and retraction - or do you want me counter-trolling until you do???

 

[WWHP]

What language is that supposed to be?

it's english, with a grammatical error thrown in for ol nasties like you to fume over. See I know all to well that ol nasties don't like to consider the actual arguments reasonably, rather, they just want to make someone wrong so they can be right.

So I of course in my perfect love, I want you to win, so I dont mind giving you what you ask for, a distraction to keep you from considering the argument reasonably.

You seek a distraction from this process to protect your own ego. Yes, that's a claim.

So I not only help you win by giving you what you want, but i also win by in turn demanding that you also consider none the less, and I assure you that although it may give you a spook in the beginning, it will give you truth in the end.

That way, we both can win this argument together.

To find the win win is surely rational. To find the win win, one surely must be objective and honest.

To prefer the win lose when given a win win option is surely irrational. To refuse the win win is certainly based on delusion. To deny the win win to others is surely deceptive.


How ya all like them apples?

yes, apples is a metaphor

 

[WWHP]

So do I get an apology and retraction - or do you want me counter-trolling until you do???

DM, if you did truly not personally insult Sheldrake in a derogatory way, then yes, you have my apology.

However, I will not make a full retraction because I dont yet have to time to verify the thread that you linked. It was my impression that on that very thread, you posted some remarks about Sheldrake, and either yourself or a forum moderator deleted them. I am going on memory here, and I believe that to be the case. I may be wrong, but I want to check with wholly if that is true before I make my retraction.

 

[pv+]

again, further proof that you are not critically considering my posts.

Well, I think everyone here is critically considering your posts. But why should anyone think critically more than once about them? Frankly even once is too often. I don't see you considering your own posts critically at all because, if you did, you wouldn't post them.
Anyway bullsh*t, in fact all sh"t, stinks. You don't have to critically examine it or go anywhere near it if you're downwind of it to know what it is. Methinks you should take that peg off your nose and stop complaining.

 

[WWHP]

Well, I think everyone here is critically considering your posts. But why should anyone think critically more than once about them? Frankly even once is too often. I don't see you considering your own posts critically at all because, if you did, you wouldn't post them.
Anyway bullsh*t, in fact all sh"t, stinks. You don't have to critically examine it or go anywhere near it if you're downwind of it to know what it is. Methinks you should take that peg off your nose and stop complaining.

let the record note that this response has absolutly nothing to do with arguing against the third value.

 

[Dean Morrison]

let the record note that this response has absolutly nothing to do with arguing against the third value.

Let the record note that Bubblefish/TM feels free to make defamatory statements, and not to withdraw them in the face of evidence.

 

[Dean Morrison]

DM, if you did truly not personally insult Sheldrake in a derogatory way, then yes, you have my apology.

However, I will not make a full retraction because I dont yet have to time to verify the thread that you linked. It was my impression that on that very thread, you posted some remarks about Sheldrake, and either yourself or a forum moderator deleted them. I am going on memory here, and I believe that to be the case. I may be wrong, but I want to check with wholly if that is true before I make my retraction.

I would have thought that calling him a 'pseudoscientist' is a clear insult - not however libelous - and he hasn't taken legal action against far loftier scientists than myself that have called him just that.

It is not illegal to make insulting remarks Bubblefish - you've taken advantage of that facility yourself - however if you are asked to back them up and you can't you're in trouble (in the UK at least)..

Don't come back here until you've checked then Bubblefish...

 

[pv+]

it's english, with a grammatical error thrown in for ol nasties like you to fume over. See I know all to well that ol nasties don't like to consider the actual arguments reasonably, rather, they just want to make someone wrong so they can be right.

Firstly it's a spelling mistake, not a grammar mistake. Of course you knew that all along!!!!!
Secondly, you don't have an argument to consider (witness this thread). You do start arguments though because you don't have the wit to do anything else.

 

[Dr Aardwolf]

Wow! What's all this 'win-win' woo-woo? Sounds like a Sheldrakian universe... A nice, fluffy fantasyland where nothing is really right or wrong, or true or false, where nondescript beings float in the smug, self-righteous glow of their 'perfect love' and play futile word-games, as they playfully evade attempts to get them to give sound reasons or evidence for their spurious claims. Nice place, just let it wash over you without trying to think about it too much.

Things undiscovered are not 'supranatural' or beyond nature but just natural things yet undiscovered, "mystery as a value of truth" is by definition always indeterminate and therefore always useless. But then, as Randi was accused once, I am somewhat obssessed by reality. That's the stuff that doesn't go away once you stop believing in it, as Philip K Dick once said.

 

[WWHP]

Not a very good one.

I think it's works just fine, you appear unable to go into any of the detail, rather, you pick superficially from the top. If you alter your strategy here, I will retract that statement and apologize.

No, you were wrong. It is boolean.

ahhh, close enough, eh? Still have to make me wrong again....

But the third value is not unknown. This is what you are missing.

the third value defines unknown. that is what you are missing.

Because if your evaluation is based in a three response system, then three responses are a possible outcome.

no, three responses are the LIMIT of the possible outcome.

you cannot discount any of those possible answers.

I'm not asking for them, I am limiting them down down to the two most reasonable outcomes inside of the limit.

Did you figure out why I brought up programming yet?

yes, pages back, your trying to bring up programming to make me wrong. Your trying to link my argument to programming, then define the argument in terms only a programmer could verify, and then use my answer deceptivly to show how three values dont function rationally inside of a dialectic.

To those that understand ternary logic your third value is completely meaningless.

then if what your saying is true, then those that understand ternary logic would not be able to understand the importance of the proposition "We cannot determine for any certainty that WMD are being manufactored and stored in Iraq, therefore we need to allow the UN Inspectors more time, there is no rush for war" in 2003.

And I'm sorry, I just dont think that those who understand ternary logic are that thoughtless and stupid.

In fact, you consistantly demonstrate that you are working from a different set of understanding than anyone else.

Now this is most likely true! I am working from a very very conservative understanding of critical thinking, and i dont think many of you are, hence, my opening post.

Establishing propositions and counter-propositions is not the same as ternary logic, yet you use ternary logic as a basis to drive your dialectic. Do you see the problem with that?

yes, the problem is your assuming I am using ternary logic as the basis of the dialectic.

It may be true to you, but it would be true only to you. Unless you want to claim sophistry that only your truth exists, you would be wrong.

your not considering my arguments, your not even responding directly to questions like you request I do. You're still cherry picking one or two phrases and trying to highlight them with your claimed understanding of logic, and your simply misapplying your knowledge because you apparently lack understanding.

Do you even know what that word {boolean} means?

Wasnt it the first prototype internet search engine from the late 19th century?

 

[pv+]

let the record note that this response has absolutly nothing to do with arguing against the third value.

Abolut(e)ly, indeedy Bubblybile. There is no "third value", so obviously no need to try and argue with it. If you like to think there is a "third value" or even a twenty-third value then I'm happy for you both. What happens in private between the consenting voices in your head is of no concern to me!

 

[WWHP]

I would have thought that calling him a 'pseudoscientist' is a clear insult - not however libelous - and he hasn't taken legal action against far loftier scientists than myself that have called him just that.

It is not illegal to make insulting remarks Bubblefish - you've taken advantage of that facility yourself - however if you are asked to back them up and you can't you're in trouble (in the UK at least)..

Don't come back here until you've checked then Bubblefish...

well thank god I'm not in the UK, I stand by my last statement, and i wont come back here til I have this cleared up, what ever the hell that means.

 

[pv+]

Bibblybobblybubblyfishywishy, your not using your apostrophe key. Is it all kakked up again?

 

[WWHP]

Let the record note that Bubblefish/TM feels free to make defamatory statements, and not to withdraw them in the face of evidence.

Let the record state that no evidence has yet to be fully presented inside of the time framegiven. Let the record state that DM as asserted that there is no evidence or testimony that can verify my claim,which has been countered in written argument in a place of public media, and that I shall refrain from making a full retraction until the evidence has been verified to my satisfaction reasonably.

 

[WWHP]

Bibblybobblybubblyfishywishy, your not using your apostrophe key. Is it all kakked up again?

PV, tell the truth, you love ol fun loving bubblefish, don't cha?

 

[pv+]

well thank god I'm not in the UK, I stand by my last statement, and i wont come back here til I have this cleared up, what ever the hell that means.

Bibblefush, have you been at the falling down water or clearing your nose?

 

[JQH]

Well hello, Bubblefish.

Why are you posting the same rubbish that was demolished on the badscience.net forum? Your mule-headed refusal to shift one millimeter is quite astounding. Have you made any of your ludicrously pompous threats to sue posters who disagree with you yet?

Oh and hi PV & Dean. Nice to bump into you here.

 

[pv+]

PV, tell the truth, you love ol fun loving bubblefish, don't cha?

In your dreams. You are very kindly giving me an excuse to get my post count up. Your lack of real freedom of speech in the US is proving to be a bit of a challenge to my limited vocabulary but, in my humble opinion, you are still a fickwutted* moron.

*arrange letters to suit.

 

[JQH]

Dunno about that pv. Seem to recall you came up with some superb insults for killik without swearing once.

 

[Ducky]

Dunno about that pv. Seem to recall you came up with some superb insults for killik without swearing once.

Oh you had to deal with kilik too?

We have a support group for that...