Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:45:52 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 12:32:17, Joe Besogn wrote: > >Kuhn: >It is not possible to compare paradigms, according to him. They are so different >that argumentation between them is rendered impossible. For example, different >phenomena are seen as important to explain, making it impossible to objectively >say which one is better. He even goes so far as to say that the adherents of >different paradigms live in different worlds. > > >I read your reply and your post at the top of the postings list. From my point >of view, of course not yours, I find your postings agressive, rude, ad hominem. >I am not trying to insult you, merely telling you that on my world this is how >you come across. From your world view, you obviously think something similar in >reverse. There was no "ad hominem" to my remarks. _unless_ you consider being called "chris whittington" an ad hominem. It wasn't intended to be one, although I suppose you might try making a case that it was. It was intended to be _factual_. I believe that it helps to know who you are talking to, or for many here, who wrote what you are reading. If that is an ad hominem, you might need to look in a mirror to see what that is so. If I were posting under a pseudonym, and someone called me "bob hyatt" I would not think that insulting. I would think "hmmm.. found me out..." and go on doing whatever it was I was doing. Childish games wear thin after a while. > >I see no purpose in arguing with you, as Kuhn says, "They are so different that >argumentation between them is rendered impossible." > >I am also aware that discussion with you would be one-sided, since you, or your >friends, have censorship power; which you've proved to be not afraid of using. I have not removed _one_ post in a thread where I was participating, excepting the famous thread between SMK and MK. Nobody else has either, to my knowledge. Therefore your remark is simply wrong. Not almost wrong, but _totally_ wrong. _you_ might behave like that on your forum. But that doesn't mean that I behave like that here on the CCC forum. Unless you have evidence to offer, of course. > >If you want to delete the ability of this account to express its opinions, then >that is up to you. If it turns out that you are who we think you are, it _will_ be deleted, as it is against CCC policy to use fake IDs for new members. If you want to post under your real name, how about emailing the moderators. Or email me directly (You certainly have my email as we have chatted before about various topics) and I will pass it on to the other moderators. Personally, I would much rather have you back under your real name. And have real discussions with you. Rather than these bizarre conversations where we talk about you as though you aren't actually here. Send me a request. I'll guarantee you that _I_ will vote to give you your original handle back, so long as you agree to act within reason. IE not posting your password and the like. So the question is, do you want to come back and join in? Or do you prefer to take pot shots from the depths of the jungle? It would certainly save us a lot of work to not have to take time out to track down bogus IDs and have Tim remove them. We once had a long and reasonable discussion on Gambitsoft, about parallel searching. I'd love to have such reasonable discussions again, here, if you really want to. But I am only 1/2 of the equation. Respond if you are interested...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.