Honesty doesn't pay :(

[Jack Simth]

Imperator Fyron said:
The only "tactic" used was to say that the basic assumptions used in the thought experiment (mental exercise) were wrong. Anything else was either an innocent switching of synonymous terms, or imagined on your part.

[sarcasm]
Yes, obviously; after pointing out how you do it yet again in a later post - in the same thread, with quotes, mind, that basically anyone can check on - it must be purely imagined on my part. Right. Of course. What other explaination could there possibly be? It must be purely my fault.
[/sarcasm]
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure I'm totally missing a plank in my own eye somewhere. But your speck is getting annoying.

Imperator Fyron said:
Isn't the meat of an argument far more important that sitting there and nit-picking every little word used? We obviously disagree on the merits of the initial assumptions; going into some point-by-point pissing match doesn't accomplish anything.

Ludd said:
"Paris Hilton may disagree with that. "

Well, I wouldn't expect her to understand the subtleties of context.

actually, I AM making a distinction - an important one, even - between punished and Jailed. As evidenced by the fact that I put "criminal" in quotes. It's a token of a fairly arbitrary nature. You say it can't reflect reality? Try this on for size:

Take, for example, a test for illegeal drug use. It's not unreasonable for a test for illegal drugs that is inexpensive enough to be applied to every member of an entire corporation to be 99% accurate (in both directions). The corporation may only have a 1% "criminal" population - users, in this case. Punishment consists of a summary firing. You check 10,000 employes, the expectation is for 99 true positives, 99 false positives, and one false negative. The test indicates that you've got just under a 2% user population (1.98%, to be precise); exactly 1 in 2 positive results are false. If you actually have a 2% user population, then you're expected to get 198 true positives, 98 false positives, and two false negatives; the test indicates that you've got just under a 3% user population (2.96%, to be precise). Just under 1 in 3 of the positive results should have been negative.

There's a reason I put "criminal" in quotes and used "punished" rather than jailed. But you didn't ask why, no request for clairification, nothing of that nature. Just a direct attack saying it's all stupid assumptions. Then when, silly me, I tried to correct you on the basis of logical constructs used, you started missing fairly important stuff and replying anyway. If A -> C under circumstances B, when B is false, obviously, it says nothing at all about C; the logic statement - by definition, mind - doesn't apply. Yet there are situations where B is true, and it does apply.

There's no point in debating you, Fyron. I'm just in the mood to play the fool today.

[Ludd]

All hail the Imperator! (Remember Thou art Mortal)

[Fyron]

Can someone lock this thread before Jack flames me again? I guess I should have learned my lesson about trying to discuss things civilly with him last time. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

[Santiago]

actually it's quite enteraining

[Renegade 13]

No, not entertaining...quite tiresome in fact.

Lock, seconded.

[Jack Simth]

Imperator Fyron said:
Can someone lock this thread before Jack flames me again? I guess I should have learned my lesson about trying to discuss things civilly with him last time. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

... as opposed to your use of terms like "pissing match"? Or saying that I'm imagining things when I can lay out what I'm talking about, plain as day? Or when you simply flat-out contradict me saying it's "unreal and don't properly reflect any sort of valid estimate"?

Yeah, lock the thread. Sure.

[geoschmo]

I see nothing yet in this thread worth locking it over, Fyron. Although I will give you both a warning if it makes you feel better.

You really should try to find a way to make your opinions a little less caustic Fyron. If you could learn to disagree with people in a nicer way you will find that your threads won't need moderator involvment as often.

Geoschmo

[Jack Simth]

geoschmo said:
I see nothing yet in this thread worth locking it over, Fyron. Although I will give you both a warning if it makes you feel better.

You really should try to find a way to make your opinions a little less caustic Fyron. If you could learn to disagree with people in a nicer way you will find that your threads won't need moderator involvment as often.

Geoschmo

Geo, you're absolutely right. I have gone beyond what is polite while arguing. Fyron, I apologize.

[Suicide Junkie]

It would be nice if ou could avoid a full page of "picky-quotes" in reply to a quarter page post and then again to a two line post.

Pointing out that the implications of your post are extremely flawed (even though you already knew that) is hardly grounds for an argument.

You guys gotta chill out and give each other a little more credit.

[Jack Simth]

SJ:
The long splits (such as my post, #529562 - 06/16/07 08:59 AM, or my post, #529829 - 06/17/07 11:34 AM) are actually for my benefit more than anything else; it lets me go through the post I'm responding to pretty much line by line, making fairly sure I'm responding to pretty much everything I want to (Fyron has, in the past, demanded that I address point X that was semi-buried in the middle of a post). It also lets me be very clear of what sentence of mine is meant to addresses what sentence of the one I'm quoting.

The scattered fragment quotes (my post, #529738 - 06/16/07 09:02 PM) was done that way because that was about all I could think of to make it clear what I was objecting to.

I don't generally think of the formatting as annoying, or the size of the web page as overly important - as I type this up, my "Show All" view of this thread is only 241,291 bytes - a trifle, at least on my network connection. It's understandable someone else might feel differently, though, now that I think about it. Hmm.

Well, it's unlikely that Fyron and I will get into another argument soon, anyway.