Selene Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I feel sorry for Xray.I wish I didn't, but I do.I feel sad to feel this...MichaelMichael:If it is any consolation, I have the same disability about this situation with Ms. Xray.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) I feel sorry for Xray.I wish I didn't, but I do.I feel sad to feel this...MichaelMichael:If it is any consolation, I have the same disability about this situation with Ms. Xray.AdamNeed a tissue? Sniff, dab, dab - gee, so very sorry that you suddenly feel now ... My eyes start to moisten as well at such compassion - blink, blink. There seems to be no problem today with the post counts - so far at least. But - to modify a saying slightly "don't count your posts before they are made". I have 2 to go ("You can make 2 more posts until Today, 12:46 PM") and am listed with 3 in the top posters section. Now it is in sync (at last!). I hope it stays that way. Xray: Who's been convinced with these "convincing arguments"? That most values are subjective doesn't mean all are. That all values are subjectively valued doesn't make all values subjective. That Ayn Rand may have made a mish-mash of this is another matter. When the mishmash is contained in the premises, things get very problematic. Edited December 29, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Ms. Xray:Before you linguistically obfuscate us away from the primary question that I posed to you.Once again,Your statement A: "Rand correctly states that 'good' is relative to evaluation from the facts of reality. Which plain and simple means [sic], that good is no absolute.""The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."How could you have gotten your statement A from that quote?How about we start with that simple answer. No questions. No references to prior quotes and posts and red herrings.Just answer the question: How could you have gotten your statement A from that quote? It is a simple single question - answer just that question.AdamHave to log out now but you will get a detailed response to your post ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Ms. Xray:Before you linguistically obfuscate us away from the primary question that I posed to you.Once again,Your statement A: "Rand correctly states that 'good' is relative to evaluation from the facts of reality. Which plain and simple means [sic], that good is no absolute.""The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of "things in themselves" nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."How could you have gotten your statement A from that quote?How about we start with that simple answer. No questions. No references to prior quotes and posts and red herrings.Just answer the question: How could you have gotten your statement A from that quote? It is a simple single question - answer just that question.AdamHave to log out now but you will get a detailed response to your post ASAP.The threat: The fight Ms. Xray loses by a knockout Ms. Xray hoisted on her own petard The world celebrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Xray - Do you really not understand what the algorithm does? It has been explained several times.Yes, the notices you report getting don't seem consistent with what the algorithm does. But hopefully when you get the notice you don't assume everything has suddenly changed again. The algorithm is still there and working as before, I would presume, pending clear evidence to the contrary.So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc... You can always ask "how many posts did I make in the last 24 hours" to determine if you can post. If the answer to "how many" is 5, then you can't post. You have to wait until the answer is 4 or fewer.Bill P, it looks like you don't understand "what the algorithm does". According to your "understanding and instructions", the algorithm requires an hourly segmented, esequential correspondence posting coinciding with the posting times of the previous 24 hour framework. Are you sure about this? Well if that is the case, how do you explain this record from my posts: Dec 25 2009 09:29 AMDec 25 2009 03:50 PMDec 25 2009 04:14 PMDec 25 2009 04:36 PMDec 25 2009 04:40 PMYesterday, 10:58 AMHmm, the software does not seem to realize that it is not supposed to allow four posts in less than an hour, but still they are there. How does that mesh with your "algorithm"? Bill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...The logical inference of your algorithm is that after the 0100 post on Tuesday, no post is possible before 0200 on Tuesday. Wrong. For the algorithm clearly does not impose such a restriction. It's any time after the 0100 post within the 24 hour frame. Bill PDoes anyone else see what is so hard to understand about "no more than 5 posts" in a 24 hour period?"Does anyone else see what is so hard to understand about a limit of five posts per 24 hour period expressing exactly that, and only that? Is it so hard to understand there is nothing expressed nor implied to prevent the five posts made in five minutes if so desired? In short, your premise is wrong, Bill. For the 'rhythm' you assume the algorithm has here - it does not exist. Bill P: I urge you to get over this obsessive fixation with the notices and focus instead on dealing with the root issue: Reform your posting behavior (nature of posts, developing logical argumentation, etc...) so that Michael does not find it essential to limit your posts.Speaking of 'posting behavior' - the cascade of recent personal attacks launched against me here (in which you took part as well), doesn't seem to bother you at all. I doubt the TOS of this forum allow a poster telling discussion opponents that they would like to burn them at the stake: I admit, btw, my desire to burn you at the stake at la Jeanne d"Arc is only a subjective value preference.--BrantI need a match--anybody got a match?Easy to see what the real 'root issue' is, Bill. It is fury in view of arguments which cannot be refuted. Edited December 30, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) A Guide to Xray Speak ASAP actually means As Soon as Attacking bill P is finished - whew that was a stretch. Bill P. agrees with Ayn.Bill P. engaged in the anti Ms. Xray jocularity.Ms. Xray is always right.Bill P. and Ayn are always wrong.Subjectively speaking.I think Ms. Xray should be placed on the global no teaching list. Adam Edited December 30, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Gee, Xray, the burning at the stake was, like, a joke. That was obvious. I didn't think you'd use it as an excuse to get sophistical. You didn't do that with my long ago suggestion that you come to Arizona to share the cask of whatever a la Edgar A. Poe in my cellar.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Sophistry...the last refuge of the cowardly simple European intellectualsOff with their heads I say - guillotine them...hmmm well I guess the European Jihadists will just show them a different beheading ceremony.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Xray - Do you really not understand what the algorithm does? It has been explained several times.Yes, the notices you report getting don't seem consistent with what the algorithm does. But hopefully when you get the notice you don't assume everything has suddenly changed again. The algorithm is still there and working as before, I would presume, pending clear evidence to the contrary.So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc... You can always ask "how many posts did I make in the last 24 hours" to determine if you can post. If the answer to "how many" is 5, then you can't post. You have to wait until the answer is 4 or fewer.Bill P, it looks like you don't understand "what the algorithm does". According to your "understanding and instructions", the algorithm requires an hourly segmented, esequential correspondence posting coinciding with the posting times of the previous 24 hour framework. Are you sure about this? Well if that is the case, how do you explain this record from my posts: Dec 25 2009 09:29 AMDec 25 2009 03:50 PMDec 25 2009 04:14 PMDec 25 2009 04:36 PMDec 25 2009 04:40 PMYesterday, 10:58 AMHmm, the software does not seem to realize that it is not supposed to allow four posts in less than an hour, but still they are there. How does that mesh with your "algorithm"? Bill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...The logical inference of your algorithm is that after the 0100 post on Tuesday, no post is possible before 0200 on Tuesday. Wrong. For the algorithm clearly does not impose such a restriction. It's any time after the 0100 post within the 24 hour frame. Bill PDoes anyone else see what is so hard to understand about "no more than 5 posts" in a 24 hour period?"Does anyone else see what is so hard to understand about a limit of five posts per 24 hour period expressing exactly that, and only that? Is it so hard to understand there is nothing expressed nor implied to prevent the five posts made in five minutes if so desired? In short, your premise is wrong, Bill. For the 'rhythm' you assume the algorithm has here - it does not exist. Bill P: I urge you to get over this obsessive fixation with the notices and focus instead on dealing with the root issue: Reform your posting behavior (nature of posts, developing logical argumentation, etc...) so that Michael does not find it essential to limit your posts.Speaking of 'posting behavior' - the cascade of recent personal attacks launched against me here (in which you took part as well), doesn't seem to bother you at all. I doubt the TOS of this forum allow a poster telling discussion opponents that they would like to burn them at the stake: I admit, btw, my desire to burn you at the stake at la Jeanne d"Arc is only a subjective value preference.--BrantI need a match--anybody got a match?Easy to see what the real 'root issue' is, Bill. It is fury in view of arguments which cannot be refuted.Not accurate, Xray. I do not assume that posting must be hourly. Please quote me and show where I state that the posting MUST BE HOURLY OR AT ANY OTHER SET RHYTHM. Reread the posts, carefully. No rhythm is assumed. I gave you one list of hypothetical posting times, which happened to be one post per hour. It could have been one post at 0100, one at 0207, one at 0209, one at 1103 and one at 1927. Or take any other five times for which the range is less than 24 hours, and the same thing will hold. If you like, 0101, 0102, 0107, 0125, 0145. Doesn't matter. Same sort of thing as discussed.I'm not going to attempt to list all collections of five times within a 24 hour time period. I gave you one example. You can create your own, to your heart's content - if you need to look at such a list to move closer to understanding what seems to be obvious to everybvody else.I am finding it hard to believe that you are unable to understand this. This is not so complicated. You are being silly, and not demonstrating any seriousness of purpose in this discussion.Bill P Edited December 30, 2009 by Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Gee, Xray, the burning at the stake was, like, a joke. That was obvious. I didn't think you'd use it as an excuse to get sophistical. You didn't do that with my long ago suggestion that you come to Arizona to share the cask of whatever a la Edgar A. Poe in my cellar.Brant,Xray is wrong, the error is elementary, and she can't wiggle out of it.That stings.Not a good time for a joke.Imagine. If she is wrong about this, what elementary errors might one find in her understanding of Rand's ideas?I don't relish the day she asks herself that in earnest. The pain will cut deep and I don't like to see anyone suffer.The only consolation in that kind of pain is that the relief of no longer lying to yourself is HUGE.The real reason I tolerate her, I guess, is because of the 12 step programs I have done. In those programs, you put up with people's BS until they are ready to take the first step. The only requirement at that point is that they must listen when others speak and there are clear rules for this. (This requirement extends throughout the program.) Step 1, which is the hardest by far, is admitting to yourself and others that you have a problem and you don't control it—that the problem is controlling you. You essentially declare that your will is not yours, that it is a slave to irrational impulses.And you want to change that, but you don't know how...It's quite a step to take. Then there is the problem of relapsing...Should Xray ever take that first step, I expect her journey to conceptual thinking on elementary stuff to be a tough one with relapses galore. Doable, but tough.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gagne Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Exactly how many people here are complaining about Xray's responses?And exactly how many people here are continuing to sanction the inanities?Just remember, she could be arguing in her spare time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Exactly how many people here are complaining about Xray's responses?And exactly how many people here are continuing to sanction the inanities?Just remember, she could be arguing in her spare time. Now that was one of the funniest skits ever!!Oh are my friends going to hammer me with that one after I send it out to them!Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Gee, Xray, the burning at the stake was, like, a joke. That was obvious. I didn't think you'd use it as an excuse to get sophistical. You didn't do that with my long ago suggestion that you come to Arizona to share the cask of whatever a la Edgar A. Poe in my cellar.Brant,Xray is wrong, the error is elementary, and she can't wiggle out of it.That stings.Not a good time for a joke.Imagine. If she is wrong about this, what elementary errors might one find in her understanding of Rand's ideas?I don't relish the day she asks herself that in earnest. The pain will cut deep and I don't like to see anyone suffer.The only consolation in that kind of pain is that the relief of no longer lying to yourself is HUGE.The real reason I tolerate her, I guess, is because of the 12 step programs I have done. In those programs, you put up with people's BS until they are ready to take the first step. The only requirement at that point is that they must listen when others speak and there are clear rules for this. (This requirement extends throughout the program.) Step 1, which is the hardest by far, is admitting to yourself and others that you have a problem and you don't control it—that the problem is controlling you. You essentially declare that your will is not yours, that it is a slave to irrational impulses.And you want to change that, but you don't know how...It's quite a step to take. Then there is the problem of relapsing...Should Xray ever take that first step, I expect her journey to conceptual thinking on elementary stuff to be a tough one with relapses galore. Doable, but tough.Gee, Michael, she hasn't signed up for any 12-step program. If you're going to do an intervention, count me out. She's hung up on objective values. If she ever acknowledges there are some everything collapses. Her position is dogmatic.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Gee, Brant,Maybe you should brush up on what an intervention is. Do you have a clue? Your post certainly does not show it.Do I need to remind you that Ms. Xray posts on my place and I do not post on hers?She comes here.By her own free choice.Nobody forces her to come. (Unless she has handlers, which I suspect, but I doubt they would force her.)I certainly do not go to where she is and try to force her to do anything.If I did, that would be an intervention.This last remark of yours was very poor quality (in just about every respect) in relation to your normal posts. What gives?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Steve,LOLOLOLOL...What a hoot. I want to say something clever, butI'm laughing too hard...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Easy to see what the real 'root issue' is, Bill. It is fury in view of arguments which cannot be refuted.Xray - What arguments which cannot be refuted? You are demonstrating, in painfully verbose posts, your inability to understand some very simple things - such as the working of a "no more than 5 posts in any given period of length 24 hours." You can go on at length about this, but until you demonstrate that you have grasped what would be obvious to an elementary school student, you are just parading what is either:1) An impressive ability to AVOID concentrating for a 15 second period to understandor2) A willful attempt on your part to manipulate and deceiveFrom the standpoint of the reader, it is difficult to tell which is the case. Your repeated protestation that you understand leaves us thinking that either you are clueless, or #2 applies. I incline to #2 as the best current explanation for your bizarre behavior.Bill P Edited December 31, 2009 by Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I can’t resist popping in when Python’s being cited. I think this captures the progress of the debate pretty well: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxL11RIEb5Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxL11RIEb5Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxL11RIEb5Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Lesson: There comes a point when you just have to call it a draw.I haven’t even been skimming the Xray dialogues lately, I’m so bored with it. Try arguing with this: QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Not accurate, Xray. I do not assume that posting must be hourly. Please quote me and show where I state that the posting MUST BE HOURLY OR AT ANY OTHER SET RHYTHM. Reread the posts, carefully. No rhythm is assumed. I gave you one list of hypothetical posting times, which happened to be one post per hour. It could have been one post at 0100, one at 0207, one at 0209, one at 1103 and one at 1927. Or take any other five times for which the range is less than 24 hours, and the same thing will hold. If you like, 0101, 0102, 0107, 0125, 0145. Doesn't matter. Same sort of thing as discussed.So, you are saying that you really meant random, but somehow presented the opposite? If you were thinking in terms of random postings, why not say so and provide examples of same in the post of "instructions?" Why now and not before?From your example (I did understand you used the full hour as examples to demonstrate your idea of how the algorithm works here, but still your premise was wrong, for it does not work that way at all): I'll take you through it step by step so you can clearly see the error. For clarity's sake, here is the quote again from your example: Bill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...Like I said, this is not not how it works here at OL, even if you put in other times. To demonstrate it to you, I'll take those random times you listed above as examples: (let's make the day Monday). Nr. 1: 0100 Nr. 2: 0207 Nr 3: 0209 Nr: 4: 1103 Nr. 5: 1927So per your algorithm calculation, after using up my Monday posts, the next time I'll be able to post (quoting you: ("ONE POST") is at 0100 Tuesady, and I can make the next post at 0207 on Tuesday. That's what your calculation says. While you are correct on the time when I can start a new posting cycle, you are completely wrong in assuming I can make only ONE POST and then will have to wait until another post will become possible at 0207. For as soon as I have made the first post in a new cycle, I can make the next post and all following at completely random times within the new 24 hour time frame. The program does not place any restriction here. That is, I don't have to wait until "another post" (Nr. 2) becomes possible. For if I want, I can make five posts in ten minutes or space them in any other way within the 24 hour time frame as I see fit. Are you now you trying to wriggle out of your mistake by pretending you had meant this all along? View PostBrant Gaede, on 30 December 2009 - 02:39 PM, said:Gee, Xray, the burning at the stake was, like, a joke. That was obvious. I didn't think you'd use it as an excuse to get sophistical. You didn't do that with my long ago suggestion that you come to Arizona to share the cask of whatever a la Edgar A. Poe in my cellar.A lot is revealed in jest, Brant. As opposed to the E. A. Poe example, so clearly placed in the realm of fiction, the "stake" example you used was far closer to reality - for in history, people indeed have been burned at the stake, either for stating truths or merely for not fitting the mold of whatever "morality" was prevalent in the societies they happened to live in. Even if you say, it was "like, a joke" - do you believe I would get away here in case I made similar "jokes"? MSK:It's quite a step to take.Michael, is there anything that keeps you from taking the step and ask yourself: "Could the premise of values being objective be wrong?" I'm by no means the only poster who has stated that values are subjective.Brant about DF's take on this issue: That a very smart man, DF, agrees with you is more understandable than that all you can do is keep repeating yourself because you have no other frame of reference.But the frame of reference IS exactly that: putting the premise of "objective value" to the litmust test to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Dragonfly: Trying to base the notion of rational self-interest (in Rand's terms the negation of altruism) on the condition of pursuing values will lead to an empty tautology, as any action can be described in terms of the pursuit of values. Suppose someone is giving away all his money and possessions to save starving children in Africa. I'm fairly sure Rand would condemn such an action and would call it altruism, not rational self-interest. But to that person helping those starving children is a greater value than his own comfort or even his own life. Saying that this is not in his self-interest is begging the question, who are we to say that saving his own children at any cost is in his self-interest but saving the lives of other children is not? That our priorities would be different is not relevant, values are subjective, not objective. Therefore Rand's theory of altruism vs. egoism is not objective, but reduces to the sum of her personal views (like the notion that "kneeling buses" are an example of altruism).http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5032&st=0I don't see any evidence of DF's points in this post having been refuted here at OL. Do you?MSK: Should Xray ever take that first step, I expect her journey to conceptual thinking on elementary stuffI'm always for exploring new horizons. Okay, I'll accept the invitation. You believe I'm wrong in stating that values can't be anything but subjective. Why exactly do you think it is wrong? Where is the alleged error? On another thread, I asked you twice to please give me an example of 'conceptual volition': View PostMichael Stuart Kelly, on 28 December 2009 - 02:15 AM, said:Morality for Rand entailed conceptual volition. It is "a code of values to guide man's actions," but within the context that those actions are motivated by concepts and choices. (She defined man as a "rational animal," which to her included conceptual volition.)Xray: "Still waiting for you to give an example of so-called "conceptual volition" in the context of morality.Being volitional is part of being a human individual. Thinking in concepts also is. How can anyone not think in concepts?So for milleniums, volitional human beings have thought in concepts, formed arbitrary categories etc., and made choices. What's new?" Can anyone here give an example of that 'conceptual volition'? (end quote Xray)http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8004&st=140So if you like, we could start with this here. Let's embark on this mental journey, and discuss it sine ira et studio. Our only focus is to be the 'Fountain of Truth', if I may coin this expression. Edited December 31, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 So essentially Ms. Xray has sunk to the OMG Caine Mutiny Strawberry Robbery:http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3zgeQmzV9kk"From your example (I did understand you used the full hour as examples to demonstrate your idea of how the algorithm works here, but still your premise was wrong, for it does not work that way at all): I'll take you through it step by step so you can clearly see the error. For clarity's sake, here is the quote again from your example: QuoteBill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...Like I said, this is not not how it works here at OL, even if you put in other times. To demonstrate it to you, I'll take those random times you listed above as examples: (let's make the day Monday). Nr. 1: 0100 Nr. 2: 0207 Nr 3: 0209 Nr: 4: 1103 Nr. 5: 1927So per your algorithm calculation, after using up my Monday posts, the next time I'll be able to post (quoting you: ("ONE POST") is at 0100 Tuesady, and I can make the next post at 0207 on Tuesday. That's what your calculation says. While you are correct on the time when I can start a new posting cycle, you are completely wrong in assuming I can make only ONE POST and then will have to wait until another post will become possible at 0207."Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 So essentially Ms. Xray has sunk to the OMG Caine Mutiny Strawberry Robbery:http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3zgeQmzV9kk"From your example (I did understand you used the full hour as examples to demonstrate your idea of how the algorithm works here, but still your premise was wrong, for it does not work that way at all): I'll take you through it step by step so you can clearly see the error. For clarity's sake, here is the quote again from your example: QuoteBill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...Like I said, this is not not how it works here at OL, even if you put in other times. To demonstrate it to you, I'll take those random times you listed above as examples: (let's make the day Monday). Nr. 1: 0100 Nr. 2: 0207 Nr 3: 0209 Nr: 4: 1103 Nr. 5: 1927So per your algorithm calculation, after using up my Monday posts, the next time I'll be able to post (quoting you: ("ONE POST") is at 0100 Tuesady, and I can make the next post at 0207 on Tuesday. That's what your calculation says. While you are correct on the time when I can start a new posting cycle, you are completely wrong in assuming I can make only ONE POST and then will have to wait until another post will become possible at 0207."SadAdam - She has wandered beyond the pale of rational discussion long ago, and sees no sign of returning. I see no benefit in even attempting discussion with her. When Xray wants to treat others with some respect and read what they say before pretending to "explain how they are wrong" she will modify her behavior. AFTER SHE CHANGES HER BEHAVIOR I will consider responding to her or acknowledging her existence. Until then - I won't waste any more time on Xray.I agree, it's a sad situation for a human to engage in the sort of behavior we have seen consistently from Xray. Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Bill:I speak to lots of folks, either on the phone, at meetings or at the barber shop or pharmacy. I always carry a book. It has been the Burns book. I just love the quizzical look usually followed by the tilted head or like our friend, a Jewish attorney said the other night, "Ayn Rand and the right...come on...". I used that to engage him in about two hours of wonderful, well argued, conversation, with myself, and our common friend, a really sharp woman. The pharmacist's wife, who is also Jewish, gave that questioning look at the Burns book and said, "Ayn Rand?" with her thumb and index finger on her chin look and her voice rising with a question at the end! My response, with Jewish folks, since I am always taken for Jewish, is "Yes indeed, Anna Rosenbaum from the Crimea...a nice Jewish girl!"...and we are off to a great discussion of her ideas.I use Ms. Xray as an example, often, as I am always telling a story which has an argument within in it. Very effective rhetoric because folks do not "hear it as an argument" which is also what Ayn knew at her very soul.Burns makes numerous references to this as you know. This was a long way to get around to the fact that Ms. Xray is kind of a therapeutic mental gymnastics for me and she makes me laugh and chuckle because she is sooooo transparent. For you, a complete waste of time, I agree.Adamlifting syllogisms in preparation for her next appearance sort of like a comet Edited December 31, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Although I have a slightly different approach to altruism than is typical for Objectivists, I admit to feeling a slight sense of pleasure at watching Xray bury her credibility in one post after another. The pleasure is not related to her on a personal level. It could be anyone and the pleasure would remain. It comes from noting how reality cannot be falsified by a lot of blah blah blah.One person after another (when they pass the boredom barrier) is seeing the obvious elementary point she refuses to deal with. The depth and intensity of that refusal is on display by the length and number of her posts. She is turning out to be a far better example for illustrating anti-conceptual thinking than I had originally imagined.For anyone interested, here is my take on altruism. Helping others without expecting a return from them makes you worthless to yourself if it is your primary vision for your life. But it can be used as an excellent means (among others) to achieve that vision. It can even be an excellent minor component of your vision.In other words, in terms of strategy/tactic thinking, it is not useful (and can even be harmful) as a strategy, unless it is a minor component, but it can be an excellent tactic to perform to serve your strategy.Obvious examples come to mind. As a minor component of strategy (or vision): Pro bono work by lawyers (and other charitable services by other kinds of professionals) as part of their vision of the job description.As a tactic: Establishing trust for your target customer base.There are many other examples that come to mind. On writing through this just now, I see that it is a good subject to explore.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 So essentially Ms. Xray has sunk to the OMG Caine Mutiny Strawberry Robbery:http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3zgeQmzV9kk"From your example (I did understand you used the full hour as examples to demonstrate your idea of how the algorithm works here, but still your premise was wrong, for it does not work that way at all): I'll take you through it step by step so you can clearly see the error. For clarity's sake, here is the quote again from your example: QuoteBill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...Like I said, this is not not how it works here at OL, even if you put in other times. To demonstrate it to you, I'll take those random times you listed above as examples: (let's make the day Monday). Nr. 1: 0100 Nr. 2: 0207 Nr 3: 0209 Nr: 4: 1103 Nr. 5: 1927So per your algorithm calculation, after using up my Monday posts, the next time I'll be able to post (quoting you: ("ONE POST") is at 0100 Tuesady, and I can make the next post at 0207 on Tuesday. That's what your calculation says. While you are correct on the time when I can start a new posting cycle, you are completely wrong in assuming I can make only ONE POST and then will have to wait until another post will become possible at 0207."SadAdam - She has wandered beyond the pale of rational discussion long ago, and sees no sign of returning. I see no benefit in even attempting discussion with her. When Xray wants to treat others with some respect and read what they say before pretending to "explain how they are wrong" she will modify her behavior. AFTER SHE CHANGES HER BEHAVIOR I will consider responding to her or acknowledging her existence. Until then - I won't waste any more time on Xray.I agree, it's a sad situation for a human to engage in the sort of behavior we have seen consistently from Xray. Bill PYou were just plain wrong in assuming in your initial post: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...However you slice it, there is no restriction whatsoever in terms of "another post" (after the first one in the new cycle) becoming possible only after some time has elapsed. Any attempt on your part at trying to backpedal on this is futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Ah, Ms. Xray resorts to the blade sinister, devastating retort, akin to your Mother wears combat boots in old semantic..."You were just plain wrong in assuming in your initial post:"But, Ms. Xray, you have to admit Bill P., by the very nature of your posting the word as wrong at least Bill P. is BOLDLY WRONG, whereas you are tediously, repetitively and endlessly simply wrong.Bill P. will boldly go where no Ms. Xray has gone before to that GOLDEN DOOR that you tried to entice poor naive Brant into for some type of PETA submission ceremony, only Bill P. being as you noticed BOLD will warp through your golden door and take you where no man has gone before...to that great big "O" in the sky see look how happy they all are - its an objective fact subjectively speaking Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Gee, Brant,Maybe you should brush up on what an intervention is. Do you have a clue? Your post certainly does not show it.Do I need to remind you that Ms. Xray posts on my place and I do not post on hers?She comes here.By her own free choice.Nobody forces her to come. (Unless she has handlers, which I suspect, but I doubt they would force her.)I certainly do not go to where she is and try to force her to do anything.If I did, that would be an intervention.This last remark of yours was very poor quality (in just about every respect) in relation to your normal posts. What gives?MichaelSorry for the tone of that post. I'd strike the first two sentences and keep the rest. My point however is that she can't take the first step without vitiating just about everything she has said here since her arrival. She may leave but she won't change.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now