3 ms·

> And one can presume you disagree with them. One can presume whatever one wants. Whether one's presumption is correct is another matter. > The evidence supp

> And one can presume you disagree with them. One can presume whatever one wants. Whether one's presumption is correct is another matter. > The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence. Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? > You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular... I'm not trying to add to one position or the other, I have made this clear several times. You may not believe me, but that is my claim - let's mark it as a discrete difference of opinion and add it to The List. > ...if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against. I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! But alas.... > I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. Now if you wer to say I might be engaging in a little provocative rhetoric, well now that would be a different matter. :) > Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Perhaps there is a complex, mysterious, paradoxical blend among all of us. I wonder what is true!

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
>I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad. >>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence. >Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement. >"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here. > I wonder what is true! One heuristic is, whatever you think is true, even if multiple people speak to the contrary. It's not a great heuristic, but _some_people_ use it. Eye roll emoji.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > Feel free to ask them of yourself... I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it. > ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. I will repost this for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad. I will repost this again, for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement. I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you. >>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. >>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible. >>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. >> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. > I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here. I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously): perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone" I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

>I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad. >>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence. >Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement. >"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here. > I wonder what is true! One heuristic is, whatever you think is true, even if multiple people speak to the contrary. It's not a great heuristic, but _some_people_ use it. Eye roll emoji.

mistermann 5y ago
> Feel free to ask them of yourself... I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it. > ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. I will repost this for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad. I will repost this again, for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement. I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you. >>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. >>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible. >>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. >> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. > I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here. I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously): perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone" I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.