Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:15:27 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com
> As always, you scrupulously ignore all the substantive content of each
> message, to focus exclusively on your personal speculations about
> people's motives, etc. I would only suggest you actually read my
> previous message for its substantive content.
>>>> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
>>> The same as my intent in responding to anyone, i.e., to say the truth.
>>>> What would be your goal as an outcome?
>>> To have said the truth.
>> As you see it.
> No, as Adolph Hitler sees it. Sheesh. Grow up. You asked me (for some
> reason) to tell you my *intent*, which I did. Are you advocating that
> people *not* intend to tell the truth (yes, as they see it)?
>> I notice that there is nothing in that about actually getting your correspondent
>> to hear and understand you, nothing about moving them incrementally in any way.
> You didn't ask me about the details of how I compose posts, and whether I
> tailor the messages to be optimally intelligible to the particular
> audience, and who that audience may be (not necessarily limited to the
> person who is nominally being addressed) etc.,
Indeed. I asked you what your intentions were in responding. If your
intentions are to hear yourself speak the truth, be so good as to say that.
If your intentions are to demonstrate something to some audience other than
the person you’re responding to, then what are you intending to demonstrate
> and your knowledge of how effective I've been in communicating things to
> people is not in evidence. I don't think you've been paying attention...
> and there's no reason you should. You seem to be primarily interested in
> sociological posturing, rather than actually trying to learn anything.
Whatever gave you the idea I engage in a conversation with you to learn
something from you? Is this something you assume is true of anyone who
engages in a conversation with you?
>> It is also clear that your intent is to make sure that your correspondent hears your
>> assessment that they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory.
> Yes, exactly.
Ah, good, I’m glad you’ve made it clear that your intent is to denigrate
the intellectual prowess of the person you’re responding to. And what would
be the end game of that? What desirable outcome do you expect to emerge?
> This is in contrast to your misguided hobby horse, which is say to
> everyone "Yes, your reasoning is perfectly sound, and your logic is
> impeccable, but you are nonetheless wrong, because you must accept the
> brute fact that 1+1=1". That is horribly wrong and misguided. Remember,
> the crank's own avowed criteria is logic and reason, and it is essential
> to convey to them how their beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory.
> Otherwise you just create more cranks who believe relativity violates
> common sense but must simply be accepted as a brute incomprehensible fact.
>> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.
> Productive? Look, if you think you are going to free a hardened
> crackpot of 60 years from his crackpot beliefs, I think you are being naive.
Well then, what positive outcome do YOU expect to emerge from informing a
hardened crackpot of 60 years of his illogical, incoherent, and
self-contradictory thinking? Does that accomplish anything? Or does it just
feel good to point it out without any hope of positive effect?
> They are no more likely to ever learn anything than you are. But the
> audience here is not limited to the person nominally being addressed, and
> there have been many appreciative responses to clear explanations.
Ah, so let me see if I have this straight. You choose to engage in a
conversation with a hardened crackpot of 60 years with no hope on your part
of actual reform of their thinking, making sure that it’s clear to the
crackpot that they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory,
just for the edification of OTHER audience members watching you do that?
> Also, for you to express bewilderment at why someone would think it was
> worthwhile to explain that an illogical belief is illogical, well, that's
> just another of your strange takes on things.
>> I didn’t ask you what your assessment is of the effect of my messaging...
> Hold on. You asked: "And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?"
> and I replied that I'm not a mind reader as to your intent, but that the
> *effect* of your messages is to flatter his ego and encourage his
> self-confidence in his ideas.
You could have said, “I don’t know and I don’t care,” full stop, which
would have been to the point of the question asked. I did not ask you about
your perception of the effect of my messages to Ed. At all. I asked you
what you think my intent is.
> This seems (to me) to be a relevant reply to your question, because
> although I obviously can't tell you your intentions, I can tell you the
> effect of your messages, which would equal the intent if you are
> achieving your intent. Only you can answer whether you are, in fact,
> intending to flatter his ego and encourage his self-confidence in his
> ideas. I personally don't care what your intent is.
>> I frankly don’t give a damn whether you think my communication
>> intentions are proper or not.
> Wait... Here's a quote with which you may be familiar:
>> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
>> What would be your goal as an outcome?
>> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.
>> And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?
>> Once again, I ask you: what would be YOUR intentions for an
>> outcome in a conversation with Ed? What do you think mine are?
> Now you pompously declare that you don't care whether I think your intentions are proper.
That’s right. I asked you about YOUR intents, which you could freely
elaborate on, since you understand them better than anyone. I also asked
you what YOU think my intent is, not what you think the effects of my
messaging to Ed is. It’s a very simple set of questions, to which “I don’t
know” answers might be perfectly appropriate, both about your intents and
If you don’t want to engage in a conversation about conversational intents
in discussions, within the venue of a discussion forum, just say so. I’m
very interested in your motivations: WHY you choose to respond to the
people you do, WHAT outcome you hope to obtain from that engagement, WHY
you think that outcome is achievable with the choices you make, and WHETHER
you think you have been successful in that desired outcome whatever it is.
> Sheesh. I have zero interest in all your questions about intentions and
> motives and productivity and blah blah blah. I only replied to your
> questions because, unlike you, I try to respond to what people say. You
> are the one who is obsessing over this personal stuff... and totally
> glossing over and ignoring all the physics content. And then you have
> the gall to scold me for my replies to your questions? Wow.