Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- From: mstanwick@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 8, 11:43 pm, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster
is talking about??
Ask Dan, he knows what I talked about, although he disagreed.
No. It is the above poster's specific claims we are asking about and
it is HIS specific meanings he must give to us. Not someone elses
meanings of his claims.
He must stop avoiding answering these questions if he wishes his
claims to be taken seriously.
(2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
designs'??
Read my posts. Here is a clue: Bamboo is Suo.[snip]
No. No more vague statements. He must be clear and specific. The 1, 2,
3... format is acceptable. He must explain clearly what he means by
'game designs' and 'influence'. He must expect from himself what he
expects form others.
More specific, the influence is in the rules of game-play in addition
to superficial symbols which had been exposed to alterations,
artistically, dialectically and "grammatically".
The 1st part is acceptable but the 2nd is just another rehash of his
baseless assertions.
Winds change with seasons and life changes with the cycle of time.[snipped middle section]
Mahjong game design simulates the changes in Nature and Man's attempt to cope with the
changes.
Now do you see there are possibly "principles in the rules"?
But what does this mean?? What is the above poster asking us to
accept? That his idea described above is possible??? Sure, it is
'possible'. But now he is using 'possibility' instead of
'probability'.
So what does he mean by 'possible'???
He must be specific and clear about what he means by principles
*possibly* being in the rules.
Just because something is 'possible' doesn't give us any reason for
accepting it as real. For us to reasonable acceptance of his ideas,
our acceptance must be based on actual evidence.
He is specifcally avoiding the fact that his arguments are not
supported by actual evidence.
He must not avoid this fact by using words such as possibly/probably/
plausibly - unless he can tell us what they mean when he uses them.
(3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
were ‘probably the result of an influence??
It is just explained. I do not have dated documented evidence from
dead historians. What I say is a plausible explanation for the rules
of the game. Plausibility leads to probability in a continuum scale.
Now we have 'plausible'. Is this another term for 'possible'???
He must tell us in specific, clear terms if we are to understand his
claim.
(4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence)
or (as in what it looks like) or (something else)??
He does not understand your question. He can not give an answer.
Does 'appearance have the meaning as in;
(1) 'he made an appearance at the concert' (that is, he was present at
the concert) or
(2) he has the appearance of a clown (what he looks like) or
(3) is there another meaning???
(5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’?
(6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’?
(7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’?
You should know all the answers to (5), (6) and (7).
No. This is another avoidance strategy so that he can get out of
telling us what he means by these terms. If we do not know then how he
demonstrate his ideas and so allow us to accdept them or not?
If you can not appreciate answers to (2) and (3), nothing matters much
anyway.
No! This is yet another way of avoiding answering those who sincerely
wish to understand his claims.
How can we appreciate his answers to (2) and (3) if he will not
explain what he means by certain terms used in those answers?? The
meaning of those answers rests on the meanings of those terms??
[cut and pasted from previous post.]
A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
probability is in consideration here.
I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
So we are again forced to ask, would the above poster like to tell us
how ‘probability’ is specifically used in his arguments then we can
proceed, from the meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
He has used the 'probability' term but has not told or explained to
us
what his probability argument is.
Since he has not given us a meaning then we must reject or not accept
his claims about probability in his hypotheses.
He has also failed to answwer this as well.
What are his probability arguments??? Where are the answers???
He must be specific and tell us.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- From: al
- Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- References:
- Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- From: al
- Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- Prev by Date: Re: Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of Cash" and why
- Next by Date: Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- Previous by thread: Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- Next by thread: Re: Incorrect use of undated sources
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
