3 ms·

You made an assertion. I provided evidence to the contrary. I'd thought a hacker was interested in truth. I think the only way to find truth is by the scientifi

by jfoutz 18y ago

You made an assertion. I provided evidence to the contrary. I'd thought a hacker was interested in truth. I think the only way to find truth is by the scientific method, however i also think water is wet.

anamax 18y ago
I'm not only interested in the truth, I'm interested in spreading it far and wide. However, you must admit that the handwriting argument isn't airtight. If we're going to smite evil, what's wrong with bringing in the big guns? Or, are you suggesting that we use something more conclusive than medical tests? (Of course, said tests should be performed by a neutral party, preferably recorded. Should it be broadcast as well?) BTW - When do we get to ask Obama about the Annenberg Challenge? After all, it was one of the highlights of his community organizing days.
- jfoutz 18y ago
  Ok. a three parter. this is kinda fun^. Part the first. The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model. For example, it was only yesterday, 1822 that the catholic church finally accepted that the earth revolves around the sun. It took something like 300 years and amazing evidence to reevaluate their position on planetary motion -- spreading the word is an acceleration that results in inertia. So, you should probably stop doing that, or people will think you're very vocal and often wrong. For point number two, handwriting isn't an argument. It's evidence. they are different things. McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did. You've been proven wrong and will neither muster an argument against the evedence nor change your opinion. I don't care what McCain can or can't do. I only care that you've been demonstrated to be wrong, and haven't brought any arguments to defend yourself. Frankly, you should be attacking the evidence. Your failing to do so means YOU ARE LOSING! OH NOES! Part 3. How about right now? If somebody is preventing you from asking that question, lmk and i'll call the cops for you d00d. this is america, we gots the freedoms de speeches. ^ it's probably best to ignore this post if you don't breath through your mouth. ^^ ^^ yes. i just made an indirect ad-homonym attack. therefore i rule. QED. ^^^ ^^^ i have to apologize for my non hacker rambling - my editor has been sacked. ^^^^ ^^^^ the remainder of this post shall be about mooses. apparently '*' is a special character. the mooses have replaced them all with '^' the mooses have informed me tom Brocaw types with one finger -- in your face! Waiting with baited breath, jfoutz
  - anamax 18y ago
    > The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model. Huh? I was suggesting spreading "the truth" as you asserted it. I suggested that we demand a conclusive test of McCain's physical abilities and spread the word. If he actually can type in a significant way and yet doesn't read e-mail, Obama's charge gets greater distribution. If, on the other hand, he can't type and/or does use e-mail, the demand and publicity may have a political downside. But, that's shouldn't bother you because you're certain that you're correct. > McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did. Except that I didn't. As one can see above, I wrote that he can't do certain things and nothing has contradicted that. (See the Forbes article quoted below.) We've now seen that the argument using the handwriting evidence was wrong - McCain does have trouble typing. It was a dumb argument anyway - a handwriting sample doesn't prove that he can write for a significant period of time. However, you're in good company. Obama's ad was wrong - McCain does use e-mail. He surfs the web. He just doesn't type lengthy responses - he dictates instead, because his hands don't work very well. Do you really want to argue that typing >30WPM for more than 10 minutes is a necessary requirement for the presidency?
    - jfoutz 18y ago
      1. spreading the truth is silly. 1pt jfoutz 2. if he can write, then he can X. you never addressed that point. clearly he can write, you've implicitly accepted that evidence. therefore he can comb his hair, and all the other things you asserted he can't do. 1pt jfoutz 3. you're certain that you're correct -- i'm one of the most open minded people you'll ever meet. you would be shocked by the positions i have flip-floped on. 1pt. jfoutz 4. McCain does have trouble typing. my dad surfs the net, he types with his right index finger. sophistication != manual dexterity. tom brocaw. hell, i don't know how to explain it to you. 1pt jfoutz 5. who gives a fuck about Obama? 1pt - jfoutz 6. typing == presidency? this is subtle and I'm not sober enough to address it adequately. The argument goes something like -- if you can't type, you don't understand computers. if you can't understand computers (demonstrated by lack of typing) it's unlikely you can understand large bureaucracy (afaik that's the fed.) if you can't understand that how can you be an effective president? you may be right, i don't think so, and i'm not really able to construct an stellar argument right now, so 1pt anamax 5 vs 1. jfoutz wins. totally fixed. i sympathize because i'm a liberal. and also i won so i'm feeling magnanimous. anywho. if you're ever in albuquerque, drop me a line. jfoutz@gmail.com. honestly, i'd love to get in this discussion in person. I'll buy the beer. heck, i think i owe you one anyway. I'm going to claim victory now, because it's time to play guitar hero. I'll take the absence of response as acceptance of your failure to support any argument, and any response whatsoever as a desire to buy me beer. thanks again, jfoutz.

by jfoutz 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

I'm not only interested in the truth, I'm interested in spreading it far and wide. However, you must admit that the handwriting argument isn't airtight. If we're going to smite evil, what's wrong with bringing in the big guns? Or, are you suggesting that we use something more conclusive than medical tests? (Of course, said tests should be performed by a neutral party, preferably recorded. Should it be broadcast as well?) BTW - When do we get to ask Obama about the Annenberg Challenge? After all, it was one of the highlights of his community organizing days.

jfoutz 18y ago
Ok. a three parter. this is kinda fun^. Part the first. The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model. For example, it was only yesterday, 1822 that the catholic church finally accepted that the earth revolves around the sun. It took something like 300 years and amazing evidence to reevaluate their position on planetary motion -- spreading the word is an acceleration that results in inertia. So, you should probably stop doing that, or people will think you're very vocal and often wrong. For point number two, handwriting isn't an argument. It's evidence. they are different things. McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did. You've been proven wrong and will neither muster an argument against the evedence nor change your opinion. I don't care what McCain can or can't do. I only care that you've been demonstrated to be wrong, and haven't brought any arguments to defend yourself. Frankly, you should be attacking the evidence. Your failing to do so means YOU ARE LOSING! OH NOES! Part 3. How about right now? If somebody is preventing you from asking that question, lmk and i'll call the cops for you d00d. this is america, we gots the freedoms de speeches. ^ it's probably best to ignore this post if you don't breath through your mouth. ^^ ^^ yes. i just made an indirect ad-homonym attack. therefore i rule. QED. ^^^ ^^^ i have to apologize for my non hacker rambling - my editor has been sacked. ^^^^ ^^^^ the remainder of this post shall be about mooses. apparently '*' is a special character. the mooses have replaced them all with '^' the mooses have informed me tom Brocaw types with one finger -- in your face! Waiting with baited breath, jfoutz
- anamax 18y ago
  > The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model. Huh? I was suggesting spreading "the truth" as you asserted it. I suggested that we demand a conclusive test of McCain's physical abilities and spread the word. If he actually can type in a significant way and yet doesn't read e-mail, Obama's charge gets greater distribution. If, on the other hand, he can't type and/or does use e-mail, the demand and publicity may have a political downside. But, that's shouldn't bother you because you're certain that you're correct. > McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did. Except that I didn't. As one can see above, I wrote that he can't do certain things and nothing has contradicted that. (See the Forbes article quoted below.) We've now seen that the argument using the handwriting evidence was wrong - McCain does have trouble typing. It was a dumb argument anyway - a handwriting sample doesn't prove that he can write for a significant period of time. However, you're in good company. Obama's ad was wrong - McCain does use e-mail. He surfs the web. He just doesn't type lengthy responses - he dictates instead, because his hands don't work very well. Do you really want to argue that typing >30WPM for more than 10 minutes is a necessary requirement for the presidency?
  - jfoutz 18y ago
    1. spreading the truth is silly. 1pt jfoutz 2. if he can write, then he can X. you never addressed that point. clearly he can write, you've implicitly accepted that evidence. therefore he can comb his hair, and all the other things you asserted he can't do. 1pt jfoutz 3. you're certain that you're correct -- i'm one of the most open minded people you'll ever meet. you would be shocked by the positions i have flip-floped on. 1pt. jfoutz 4. McCain does have trouble typing. my dad surfs the net, he types with his right index finger. sophistication != manual dexterity. tom brocaw. hell, i don't know how to explain it to you. 1pt jfoutz 5. who gives a fuck about Obama? 1pt - jfoutz 6. typing == presidency? this is subtle and I'm not sober enough to address it adequately. The argument goes something like -- if you can't type, you don't understand computers. if you can't understand computers (demonstrated by lack of typing) it's unlikely you can understand large bureaucracy (afaik that's the fed.) if you can't understand that how can you be an effective president? you may be right, i don't think so, and i'm not really able to construct an stellar argument right now, so 1pt anamax 5 vs 1. jfoutz wins. totally fixed. i sympathize because i'm a liberal. and also i won so i'm feeling magnanimous. anywho. if you're ever in albuquerque, drop me a line. jfoutz@gmail.com. honestly, i'd love to get in this discussion in person. I'll buy the beer. heck, i think i owe you one anyway. I'm going to claim victory now, because it's time to play guitar hero. I'll take the absence of response as acceptance of your failure to support any argument, and any response whatsoever as a desire to buy me beer. thanks again, jfoutz.