3 ms·

> What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something? You know it's not. > Do you think someone is fabricating

by cxr 5y ago

> What is your argument at this point? Both authors of those emails are time travellers or something? You know it's not. > Do you think someone is fabricating these emails? Why would they do that and how would they get them onto these third-party websites? Once again: any attempt to engage requires as a precondition some kind of indicator that doing so wouldn't be a monumental waste of time. You seem comfortable providing assurance that such a thing will remain forever absent.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> any attempt to engage requires as a precondition some kind of indicator that doing so wouldn't be a monumental waste of Tim Since you are engaging by replying, you must have some kind of indicator? You chose to reply in the first place and to keep replying. And you said you were only aware of one example, so you must be rapidly re-examining your own position, right? We can restart the conversation if you like? What do you think is wrong with my multiple examples of the use of the term, in context, before they claimed to have coined it? Why don't they count in your mind?
- cxr 5y ago
  > Since you are engaging There's an implicit "further"—as in "engage further"—and an explicit "to prosecute any of your claims". It's clear enough what type of "engaging" I'm referring to. > You chose to [...] keep replying. My mistake.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I'll take that as you've got no explanation for the multiples sources beyond that it was a pre-existing idea and wasn't coined by the OSI.
    - cxr 5y ago
      What fascinated me was that, even laying out my awareness of the "neverending fractal of bullshit" tactic and making it clear it wouldn't work, we went around in a similar circle — and Chris didn't seem to see any problem with this, just so long as he thought that even if you couldn't be fooled into wasting your time addressing his claims on the original topic under the mistaken belief that he was coming to the table in good faith, he might stand a chance fooling you into wasting time arguing about why you weren't willing to waste time arguing with him.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        It's not a 'neverending fractal of bullshit' - it's two emails showing that the term was used before they claimed to have coined it. I showed a second after you complained it was just one. Are they bullshit? Why? I'm not going in in a circle - I'm still pointing at these two examples you haven't explained yet. At the moment you've just entered a conversation, said you don't agree, then refused to explain why when asked, and complained that you'd be a fool to reply. Why get involved in the first place when you don't have any arugments to offer?

by cxr 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> any attempt to engage requires as a precondition some kind of indicator that doing so wouldn't be a monumental waste of Tim Since you are engaging by replying, you must have some kind of indicator? You chose to reply in the first place and to keep replying. And you said you were only aware of one example, so you must be rapidly re-examining your own position, right? We can restart the conversation if you like? What do you think is wrong with my multiple examples of the use of the term, in context, before they claimed to have coined it? Why don't they count in your mind?

cxr 5y ago
> Since you are engaging There's an implicit "further"—as in "engage further"—and an explicit "to prosecute any of your claims". It's clear enough what type of "engaging" I'm referring to. > You chose to [...] keep replying. My mistake.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I'll take that as you've got no explanation for the multiples sources beyond that it was a pre-existing idea and wasn't coined by the OSI.
  - cxr 5y ago
    What fascinated me was that, even laying out my awareness of the "neverending fractal of bullshit" tactic and making it clear it wouldn't work, we went around in a similar circle — and Chris didn't seem to see any problem with this, just so long as he thought that even if you couldn't be fooled into wasting your time addressing his claims on the original topic under the mistaken belief that he was coming to the table in good faith, he might stand a chance fooling you into wasting time arguing about why you weren't willing to waste time arguing with him.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      It's not a 'neverending fractal of bullshit' - it's two emails showing that the term was used before they claimed to have coined it. I showed a second after you complained it was just one. Are they bullshit? Why? I'm not going in in a circle - I'm still pointing at these two examples you haven't explained yet. At the moment you've just entered a conversation, said you don't agree, then refused to explain why when asked, and complained that you'd be a fool to reply. Why get involved in the first place when you don't have any arugments to offer?