Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 20/11 20:24 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 19/11 21:55 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 23:18 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 04:13 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Latest posts
- 20/11 20:24 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 19/11 21:55 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 23:18 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 18/11 04:13 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
-
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: > >Lomax wrote: > > >Mark wrote: > >[…] > > > >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again. > > > > >L: In his opinion. > > > >-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
>L: Mark has mistaken correctness for debate skill.
-M: Correctness is a debating skill. You are talking about rhetorical skill.
I am not interested in this.>L: They are entirely two different things. What I wrote was correct. In Mark’s opinion, he is a good debater. And he has “whupped” those arguing with him. I’m not arguing, I’m stating facts, and I am unconcerned with whether or not what I’m writing shows good debate skills.
-M: Your ‘facts’ are still in a debate format. This makes it debate, even if you say you are unconcerned with rhetoric.
> > >L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own > >debate skill.
> >-M: I judge myself to be a good debate. […] Do you debate otherwise?
>L: You’re asking me my opinion? I’m not debating. Debate is quite a > process. Rather, I’m just saying what I see. It will ring a bell with > some people and not with others. At this point, I’m only looking to > ring a few bells, not to convince the world. And when it is time to > convince the world, it will probably not be me who is “debating.” > There are people far better at that than me.
-M: You take positions and counter-positions. This is debate.
> >M: If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
>L: Mark, you are an idiot.
-M: If so, then I am one that appears to be having more fun than you.
> > >L: Debate is a communication art,…
> >-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
>L: No, that is correctness.
-M: “Lets have a debate.” “No, I’d rather have a correctness.”
>L: Debate is about convincing people.
-M: That is rhetoric. I’ll leave that to the politicians and ideologists. By contrast, I will debate for correctness of systems design.
>L: I learned this the hard way, way back in grade school. Apparently, Mark missed > the lesson. I can understand, it was not formally taught. I was > right, I’d done my homework, I knew the issues. But somebody else > won. Why? Beats me. Maybe they had nicer hair.
-M: You had an audience of lemmings.
>L: That was grade school. But look at the public arena. Reagan rather > clearly won his debates with Carter. Was he right? Hardly. Carter was > brilliant. But, as I said, debate is a communications skill. > It is not about being right.[…]
-M: It is about being right.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 04:42 PM 11/16/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: It is about being right.
Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants to words, he seems to have no concept that language is a community affair. He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them. But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and the truth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
Mark also imagines that I am debating with him. No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: > >-M: It is about being right.
>L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants > to words,…
-M: Yes, I can.
>L:…he seems to have no concept that language is a community > affair.
-M: “…community…” – by what measure?
>L: He imagines that he can be “right” all by himself, manipulating his own symbols and being pleased with them.
-M: In an intersubjective context, as long as I follow the rule structures, that is what counts. In a subjective context, I can still be right on my own. Its still up to y’all to have ears to hear the truth.
>L: But truth is not actually in symbols and the relationships of symbols, and the > truth of a communication does not exist apart from the recipient.
-M: This is why its not my job to be convincing, its other’s job to be convinced when the truth is presented to them.
>L: Mark also imagines that I am debating with him.
-M: As I said, you are presenting positions and counterpositions, this is debate.
Please maintain continuity by not ignoring my points.>L: No, I’m commenting, and he is not my audience, though he can be a member of the audience, if he likes. This is not a secret from him, though he can obfuscate it for himself if he chooses.
-M: After all of this, where have you challenged SD2-S and/or its theorectical underpinnings? Are you being a DODGE-MONKEY?
I still have standing points.
How about addressing those?
How about serving the field instead of fucking with an expert?shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 05:18 PM 11/18/2006, Mark wrote:
> > >-M: It is about being right. > > >L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants > > to words,… > >-M: Yes, I can.
Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.” If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use the language of the recipient, unless possibly he always defines terms he is using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes it more difficult for the audience.)
He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.”
I frequently fail to communicate with people; I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it my responsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, my purpose is communication, not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption should be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand. Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that the problem is that they are idiots.
Or lemmings.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: > > > >-M: It is about being right. > > > > >L: Mark apparently believes that he can assign whatever meaning he wants > > > to words,… > > > >-M: Yes, I can.
>L: Right. He can. His purpose is not communication, but “being right.” > If his purpose in writing were communication, he would use the > language of the recipient,…
-M: I do use the language of the recipient.
>L:… unless possibly he always defines terms he > is using outside the meanings used by the audience (which makes it > more difficult for the audience.) He is here, not to communicate with us, but to create a record of his “being right.” I frequently fail to communicate with people;
-M: My audience is not commoners. It is those in the field of systems design.
My audience is those who show their worthiness by either already knowing technical terms,
or have the will to use Google.>L: I am often writing something which is outside the boxes they know. But I consider it my > responsibility to take this into account, wherever I can. That is, my > purpose is communication,…
-M: It is also your responsibility to communicate in a point-by-point format to maintain the linearity and continuity of discourse.
>L: not “being right.” Of course I try to be right, but that is not how I choose my language, when I am paying attention. If the communication fails, my first assumption should > be that I did not say it in a way that the audience could understand. > Of course, I’m just like everyone else, I can easily assume that the > problem is that they are idiots. Or lemmings.
-M: …Or unworthy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
