6 ms·

Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent.

Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent. If you believe I should be owning up to something but I haven't yet, it is because either I wasn't wrong, or the argument against me wasn't coherent. But at least you finally capitulated. I didn't think you would, so you at least proved me wrong there.

mannykannot 12y ago
I am hugely amused that you just could not resist making a statement that proves it is you who suffers from the obsession you accuse me of (not that there was any real doubt.) You remind me of the child who just cannot resist the marshmallow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  Are you claiming that if I hadn't corrected your false statements quickly, and instead I had waited a short while, that you would have made additional false statements that you wouldn't otherwise have made? So that I could have enjoyed correcting you even more? If that's true then I wish you would have said that up front like the experimenter in the video. Unlike the subjects, I would have had no problem delaying that gratification. My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.
  - mannykannot 12y ago
    Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. It doesn't even count as a rhetorical ploy; 'Go directly to fail' would be a more appropriate characterization. A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours, in which the comparison of references was neither here nor there, once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining. When you could have left it as an amicable difference of opinions, you chose to double-down and insist that anything other than your opinion was flat-out wrong, which led you to make a series of increasingly poor arguments, culminating in the ridiculous claim that the alternatives would literally be exponentially more complex. In each case (including the last), after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument. Instead, you circled around and tried to make a different argument for the same claim, as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it. If there was any doubt before that you suffer from the obsession you accuse me of, you effectively removed it by this behavior. There is not much point in discussing anything with someone like you, but your sanctimonious rudeness to me and others makes it worthwhile. 'My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.' No surprise there - your juvenile motivations are plain for anyone to see.
    - jjnoakes 12y ago
      > Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. So the video had no point then? Because the video I saw was about delayed gratification, not the strategy of truths and falsehoods. And I still await a clear idea of where I made a claim of truth and was mistaken. As I've said in the past, if you can show me that clearly, I'll capitulate. I've been patiently waiting through all of your long-winded responses for this, and have been disappointed so far. In fact, you now have changed your characterization of my posts from "truths and claims" to "opinions", which most of them were all along (the only claim I believe I made that could be considered fact instead of opinion was the refutation of your C++ references-and-pointers equation, which you agreed I was correct on). > A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours I don't see that anywhere, actually. > once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining I also don't see this anywhere. What I do see is my claim that C++ is a useful comparison - but nowhere do I see myself claiming it is the "only" one, or the "only feasible" one. Some of my quotes have been: "for the purposes of this discussion, it is very useful and illustrative to equate pass-by-reference to C++ references, and object references to C++ pointers, because the languages are similar and the concepts match up very well, and because these things are more explicit in C++" and "Seems like C++ is as good a choice as any" and "one could have defined everything without comparing to C++"... > after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument But you haven't actually pointed out any flaws in any of my claims. > as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it Please, point out the pile of refutations to the claim that C++ is useful in this discussion (not "only", just "useful)... especially since, refuting the notion that it is useful to someone means finding everyone who read it and getting them to admit that they found no use in it. If you do that, I'll certainly admit I was wrong. > your sanctimonious rudeness I see very little rudeness - the only clear cut case was in response to someone else who basically asked me what rudeness would look like and I gave an example referencing proggit. Care to quote any specific rudeness toward you? Be careful not to equate an unpleasant discussion with rudeness. > your juvenile motivations If you think truth is a juvenile motivation then I finally understand everything you've written.

mannykannot 12y ago

I am hugely amused that you just could not resist making a statement that proves it is you who suffers from the obsession you accuse me of (not that there was any real doubt.) You remind me of the child who just cannot resist the marshmallow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mWc1Y2dpmY

jjnoakes 12y ago
Are you claiming that if I hadn't corrected your false statements quickly, and instead I had waited a short while, that you would have made additional false statements that you wouldn't otherwise have made? So that I could have enjoyed correcting you even more? If that's true then I wish you would have said that up front like the experimenter in the video. Unlike the subjects, I would have had no problem delaying that gratification. My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.
- mannykannot 12y ago
  Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. It doesn't even count as a rhetorical ploy; 'Go directly to fail' would be a more appropriate characterization. A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours, in which the comparison of references was neither here nor there, once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining. When you could have left it as an amicable difference of opinions, you chose to double-down and insist that anything other than your opinion was flat-out wrong, which led you to make a series of increasingly poor arguments, culminating in the ridiculous claim that the alternatives would literally be exponentially more complex. In each case (including the last), after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument. Instead, you circled around and tried to make a different argument for the same claim, as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it. If there was any doubt before that you suffer from the obsession you accuse me of, you effectively removed it by this behavior. There is not much point in discussing anything with someone like you, but your sanctimonious rudeness to me and others makes it worthwhile. 'My prize would have beaten a marshmallow any day.' No surprise there - your juvenile motivations are plain for anyone to see.
  - jjnoakes 12y ago
    > Most people figure out as children that claiming the truth of something that is demonstrably false is a losing strategy. So the video had no point then? Because the video I saw was about delayed gratification, not the strategy of truths and falsehoods. And I still await a clear idea of where I made a claim of truth and was mistaken. As I've said in the past, if you can show me that clearly, I'll capitulate. I've been patiently waiting through all of your long-winded responses for this, and have been disappointed so far. In fact, you now have changed your characterization of my posts from "truths and claims" to "opinions", which most of them were all along (the only claim I believe I made that could be considered fact instead of opinion was the refutation of your C++ references-and-pointers equation, which you agreed I was correct on). > A simple reading of this thread shows that I have merely been responding to specific claims of yours I don't see that anywhere, actually. > once you chose to make an issue of whether your C++-comparison based explanation was the only feasible one remaining I also don't see this anywhere. What I do see is my claim that C++ is a useful comparison - but nowhere do I see myself claiming it is the "only" one, or the "only feasible" one. Some of my quotes have been: "for the purposes of this discussion, it is very useful and illustrative to equate pass-by-reference to C++ references, and object references to C++ pointers, because the languages are similar and the concepts match up very well, and because these things are more explicit in C++" and "Seems like C++ is as good a choice as any" and "one could have defined everything without comparing to C++"... > after I pointed out the flaws in your claims, you have neither accepted the point, nor offered any counter-argument But you haven't actually pointed out any flaws in any of my claims. > as if there was not already a growing pile of refutations stacking up against it Please, point out the pile of refutations to the claim that C++ is useful in this discussion (not "only", just "useful)... especially since, refuting the notion that it is useful to someone means finding everyone who read it and getting them to admit that they found no use in it. If you do that, I'll certainly admit I was wrong. > your sanctimonious rudeness I see very little rudeness - the only clear cut case was in response to someone else who basically asked me what rudeness would look like and I gave an example referencing proggit. Care to quote any specific rudeness toward you? Be careful not to equate an unpleasant discussion with rudeness. > your juvenile motivations If you think truth is a juvenile motivation then I finally understand everything you've written.