Hi Liz / pgc If I have been abusive to you or Bruno then I apologize without hesitation. If you would show where I have been abusive though I would appreciate that, because at the moment I regard the suggestion as low and mean spirited.
I have made my points and been misrepresented, misunderstood and disagreed with. I have clarified as far as I could. No doubt I have misrepresented and misunderstood people in return. In what way is that out of the ordinary in debate? In what way is that a disservice to anyone? The points under debate may seem obvious to you, well I apologise for my stupidity but they are not obvious to me. I find it stunning that people find anything in the realm of theoretical physics remotely obvious. Bruno should be happy that people are still reading his papers. What more respect can anyone give him? I do not follow his argument. I do not follow his or your attempts to clarify them. I see flaws in what you say. Does that really insult you? --- Original Message --- From: "LizR" <lizj...@gmail.com> Sent: 4 October 2013 7:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com, "Charles Goodwin" <charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 4 October 2013 06:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com>wrote: > > You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the > flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is "it sucks". > > Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact that Bruno's > politeness and dedication to critical debate puts him in default mode of > taking your points seriously and granting you the benefit of the doubt that > you would not in the faintest be inclined to grant in return, these > discussions are a one way street into brick walls with "you suck" infantile > graffiti sprayed on them at the end. > > So unless you can state something more substantial than teenage insults > and ruses รก la "I don't understand THIS AND THAT!!!" or the more passive > but nonetheless authoritative "you're confusing first/third person, > everything is first person" etc. , I submit you guys are trolling and > wasting time on this. > > Either be open for genuine discussion and finding of flaws or this is > pointless as it does a disservice to the readers of this list. It is not > difficult to see that refuting computationalism in this form, would be a > major result. > > Your aspirations are lofty gentlemen, but they don't jibe with the > infantilization and the mockery masking itself as poised discourse and > clear debate. PGC > I would like to frame this post and bring it whenever necessary :) In fact I will keep a copy, just in case it's ever needed again. Thank you, PGC. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
