Re: OT: No Science, Please - We're British


( T Mark Hall needs a copy of this deposited to his email box ... )


T Mark Hall (inept killfiler) <tmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As a proponent of using the killfile option, which I use to delete from
> my system the postings of Sam Sloan and jb, I will step up to defend it.
> The arrogance comes only, in this case, from jb; his insistence is that
> no-one be allowed to avoid having his postings displayed,


I don't recall ever saying this. Indeed, it should be possible
to host a meta-discussion concerning killfiling itself, however
all parties to -that- discussion would need to suspend killfiling.
So there's no use even in attempting some meta-discussion.
Return thereby to the "logic" deployed for ordinary discussions
to obtain a reduction to absurdity. As with most, T Mark Hall
resorted to killfiling because he was losing arguments right
here on the newsgroup. That's what offended his ego/pride.




> ... including his continual off-topic rantings,


But once you embark upon killfiling you have no evidentiary
basis for asserting this type of remark. T Mark takes leave of his
senses when departing from the maxim "he who asserts must prove."




> ... his oft-repeated statement that you have to read them
> to be aware of the arguments (not the debate or discussion).


Quite likely you do, as has been shown on a few occasions.




> ... There has been general acknowledgement here that jb is the
> local resident troll.


Which itself was simply a trolling in search of troll fodder.
Rather than address the terms of the original article inceptional
to this thread, the British resort to ad hominem diversions on an
obscure newsgroup.




> The recommendation to use a killfile is to avoid any temptation
> to become trollfodder.


If temptation is involved, then you are positing "choice" w/r/t
matter. Yet, once adopting "choice" you must then be accountable
to the responsibility for having become troll fodder. This, T Mark
has not done, because in order to shirk responsibilities he has
instead imposed self-censorship upon his limited space domain.
Even if T Mark wears a condom, he has not bypassed "temptation."




> I believe many rational, intelligent Go players have taken that
> advice to heart. That is a matter of personal choice, and not
> arrogant nonsense.


If Go were "rational and intelligent" then computers would
be excelling at it by now. Instead our -limited- capabilities for
this understanding of "rationality" and "intelligence" w/r/t Go
have imposed barriers and obstacles to understanding in order
to describe properly a task for artificially aware cognitive systems.
A philosophy of rationalism is not to be conflated with rationalizing.

For getting at some analysis, epistemology and phenomenology
of the technical term "arrogant" let's examine its definitions:


===============
arrogant, a. and n. -( Oxford English Dictionary )-

A. adj. Making or implying unwarrantable claims to dignity,
authority, or knowledge; aggressively conceited or haughty,
presumptuous, overbearing.
(Used of men, their actions, manner, etc.)

B. as n. A proud, haughty person. Obs.
===============



An "unwarrantable claim" ---

"...his insistence is that no-one be allowed to avoid
having his postings displayed..." ( T.Mark Hall )
^^^ --- NO SUPPORTIVE CITATION WAS SUPPLIED --- ^^^

Indeed I have elsewhere defended the rights of those who
would resort to killfiling, just as I would defend the rights of
those who choose to make comments about the killfilers.
When speaking of a "right" we mean -inviolate- by government.
Yet what is government other than concerted efforts by people?




- regards
- jb

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents hamper military recruitment for Iraq slaughterhouse
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6345
------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Relevant Pages
Loading