Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations


george wrote:

On May 9, 7:58 pm, James Burns <burns...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As respectful as you've been of Phil, and he STILL
doesn't want to have a conversation with you! You're
right, it HAS TO BE Jesse's fault!

The thread is so chaotic that YOU can't read it all
EITHER, ***.
Phil EXPLICITLY REQUESTED that I provide him the
alternate proof. I posted several very polite purely
technical messages IN RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST,
WITHOUT any intervening verbal abuse from me.
You, of course, since the thread is fractal, COULD NOT
FIND THEM, which I count as an absolute blessing.

I have a few thought and questions about this first paragraph.

(1) Why do you assume that I would want to read the entire
thread, even if it were much shorter?

My experience of kook threads (or, perhaps, more generously,
extreme unorthodoxy threads) has been that everyone repeats
the same point over and over and over, ad nauseum. I usually
read a small sample of posts from such threads, and I believe
(unverifiably, alas) that I gather thereby a large percentage
of the content, at a small percentage of the full cost in
tedium and aggravation.

Occasionally, something will spark more of an interest,
and I will read the surrounding subthread and/or
references within the posts.

(2) Oddly enough (I wouldn't have bet on this), I think I am
familiar with at least some of the subthread you refer to.
Isn't that nearby where Phil asks someone (Jesse Hughes?)
for a "modern proof", in response to something you wrote.
I think that went around a couple times with no one
really understanding what was going on. If I wanted to
see your purely technical messages to Phil, I would start by
googling on Phil and "modern proof" and looking in the thread
nearby. Would I find them?

(3) You say you managed to send several messages to
Phil in a row without heaping abuse on him, and I have
no reason to doubt you on this point. So what? Is
Phil going to instantly forget all the abuse of the
previous day, previous week, previous months?
Would you?

(4) You call your response to Phil's request "purely
technical messages", not an "alternate proof". Also,
not far upthread from this post, you complain that you
weren't able to post the proof you wanted and Phil had
asked for. This causes me to suspect that your response
to Phil was /not/ the proof he had asked for, nor
any proof, quite possibly. I could go look it up,
I suppose, or you could tell me. Did you give him a
proof at that point?

Assuming you did not give him the proof he asked for,
what were you expecting from Phil? Permission? Begging?
Why didn't you just go ahead and post the proof?

(5) You, of course, have no way of knowing what I have
and have not read on any particular thread. The notion
that I COULD NOT FIND THEM is just more of your bull***.
On the other hand, why would I want to find them?
Those posts were directed at Phil, presumably about
his misconceptions. If you think I share Phil's
misconceptions, then you are a perfect imbecil.

Contrariwise, why would you even care if I did read them?
I'm nearly curious enough to look for them, now.

-------

That's enough for now. I'm going to see if you're going to
continue to tell me I can't address this or that topic,
before I decide whether to respond to the rest of your post.

Jim Burns

Even now, presuming to comment (ignorantly) on the
subject, YOU STILL haven't found them.

You jump to the conclusion that Phil found them and
ignored them because they were from someone who was
abusing him, BUT THAT DOES NOT SQUARE with
the fact that Phil MADE THE REQUEST *after* the abuse.

More to the point, for ANYBody to complain about my posting
abusively at Phil is idiotic in light of PHIL'S claims that he's
so much smarter than the rest of us when it comes to
finding hidden axioms and shift-errors, or how he knows
that logic is NOT monotonic.

PPS -- So, if I read you right,

Please. That would certainly be a first.
We are NOT holding our breath.

you have this theory that you're
getting lost in the shuffle because the thread is so long.

That is not what I said. I said that other people needed to
shut up so that Phil would have to reply to me instead of
deluding himself into thinking that he was doing something
constructive by replying to them. But A FUNNY THING HAPPENED
after Phil's most recent return: Jesse Hughes and MoeBlee and
a few others FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE (not the one about
shutting up) and STARTED REACTING EQUALLY ABUSIVELY.
Rather than making themselves things to which Phil could respond
INSTEAD of responding to The Point, THEY got abusively insistent
that Phil respond directly TO THEIR points. There was sort of
a convergence of conversations in terms of everybody stressing
particular subpoints of the ZFC proof. At that point it was no
longer necessary for me to be heard because EVERYBODY ELSE
WAS DOING IT *MY* way, not in terms of a simpler axiom-set
(2PA instead of 1ZFC) but in terms of abusing Phil for trying to
dodge the issue or change the subject. He eventually did start
to show some signs of a halfway mathematical approach to the
issue, insisting (for example) that he was entitled to alternative
axioms or definitions around infinity if he found them more in
tune with his intuition. I was entitled to get VERY abusive
behind that because I WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED the
alternative definitions of infinity TWO MONTHS AGO (well,
I was quoting Rubin, but the point is, I HAD addressed THAT
issue and HE HAD ignored it).

Why is it you think this applies more to you than to anyone
else posting in the thread(s)?

That IS NOT a question of what ANYBODY *thinks*!
It OBSERVABLY FACTUALLY HAPPENED (The record
IS THERE in the reply tree in the thread!) that Phil ignored
a lot of my direct responses to his points and chose to
reply to other people. Eventually that did lead to his
having to directly address relevant logical points, but it
certainly would've all happened a lot more quickly and
efficiently IF NONE OF THEM HAD EVER SAID ANYTHING.
NOT that that was knowable in advance; they obviously
deserve credit for trying; it did in fact eventually work, a little.

But none of that is even the issue.

The issue IS that Phil explicitly ASKED me to do something
for him and other people WHO COULD EASILY have responded
on other subthreads of this thread responded on that one.
I don't feel especially obligated to tolerate accusations that
*I* am the one being discourteous when that happens, or when
it happens that somebody who doesn't even know that classical
logic is monotonic and who routinely ignores my messages in
order to respond to other people, alleges that he is better at
finding errors in proofs than I am, or that *I* am the one dodging
issues because of my *** nature.

If you Jim Burns want to call "disrespect" then you had
BETTER get a HELL of a lot BETTER at TELLING just
WHO is disrespecting WHOM.
.

Quantcast