Parsing Stewart

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Richard Smyth at Road Run

Parsing Stewart

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 24 aug 2007 05:03:51

In remarks addressed to Elizabeth Moss, I said:

"Stewart and at least one of the list-managers seem to disagree about a question of empirical fact. The
question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls: ignoring them or attacking them. I have absolutely no empirical evidence that bears on this question."

In reply to that question, Stewart said:

"An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

In his most recent post he says:

"> In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped
posting
after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped posting because
Stewart had whacked him.

"This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion here
for a time."

I do not believe that I falsely represented the meaning of Stewart's initial reply to the question I put to Elizabeth Moss.

Parsing Stewart must be as difficult as parsing Duns Scotus. Since I have great affection for Scotus, Stewart must not take that as anything but a compliment.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 05:45:36

On Aug 24, 2:03 pm, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
In remarks addressed to Elizabeth Moss, I said:

"Stewart and at least one of the list-managers seem to disagree about a
question of empirical fact. The question is which behavior is more effective
in silencing trolls: ignoring them or attacking them. I have absolutely no
empirical evidence that bears on this question."

In reply to that question, Stewart said:

"An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which he
emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

In his most recent post he says:

[Richard Smyth having written:]
"> In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped
posting after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped
posting because Stewart had whacked him.

"This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion here
for a time."

I do not believe that I falsely represented the meaning of Stewart's initial reply to > the question I put to Elizabeth Moss.

Then your belief is incorrect. I thought logic was supposed to be your
strong suit - how does Hines emerging from a struggle with his tail
between his legs equate to his going from one proximate cause (your
version, that I claimed it was due to a whacking from me) rather than
another (mine, from humiliation of his own making abetted by me)?

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

I write, as far as possible, exactly why I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Parsing Stewart must be as difficult as parsing Duns Scotus. Since I have
great affection for Scotus, Stewart must not take that as anything but a
compliment.

The first compliment that any conscientious writer looks for is to be
read attentively.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 06:20:26

On Aug 24, 2:45 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

I write, as far as possible, exactly why I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Hoist, as Hines might say truly for once, with my own petar....

Read "I write, as far as possible, exactly what I mean".

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 09:06:57

Richard Smyth is quite expert at Logic.

He is a former college professor of Philosophy at Chapel Hill -- and a
member of Yale University's undergraduate Class of 1955.

This exchange with Peter should be fun to watch.

Richard well understands the Fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Hines simply stopped reading SGM and posting to it because he had wrung out
the lines most important to him and grew bored with the trivia.

He also had more important Family, Travel and Investment priorities.

Now he's back...
--------------------------------------------

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

I write, as far as possible, exactly why [sic] I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Hilarious!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187930736.170600.59650@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 2:03 pm, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com
wrote:

In remarks addressed to Elizabeth Moss, I said:

"Stewart and at least one of the list-managers seem to disagree about a
question of empirical fact. The question is which behavior is more
effective
in silencing trolls: ignoring them or attacking them. I have absolutely
no
empirical evidence that bears on this question."

In reply to that question, Stewart said:

"An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was
ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which
he
emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

In his most recent post he says:

[Richard Smyth having written:]
"> In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped
posting after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped
posting because Stewart had whacked him.

"This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM
after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion here
for a time."

I do not believe that I falsely represented the meaning of Stewart's
initial reply to > the question I put to Elizabeth Moss.

Then your belief is incorrect. I thought logic was supposed to be your
strong suit - how does Hines emerging from a struggle with his tail
between his legs equate to his going from one proximate cause (your
version, that I claimed it was due to a whacking from me) rather than
another (mine, from humiliation of his own making abetted by me)?

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

I write, as far as possible, exactly why I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Parsing Stewart must be as difficult as parsing Duns Scotus. Since I
have
great affection for Scotus, Stewart must not take that as anything but a
compliment.

The first compliment that any conscientious writer looks for is to be
read attentively.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 09:27:01

So Hines expects us to believe that he grew bored with the "trivia" of SGM
(most of it his own doing), while he was carrying on in exactly that same
ways on other Usenet groups and occasionally crossposting the dreary results
here - during the period when he refrained from participating directly in a
thread on SGM - and yet he finds me and my typos, that were available for
his delectation _only_ here in the same timeframe, hilarious and at least
equal to the best entertainment there is....

Stupid as a mule stuck head-down in a bog AND intent on showing it off!

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:6nwzi.190$Jp2.1090@eagle.america.net...
Richard Smyth is quite expert at Logic.

He is a former college professor of Philosophy at Chapel Hill -- and a
member of Yale University's undergraduate Class of 1955.

This exchange with Peter should be fun to watch.

Richard well understands the Fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Hines simply stopped reading SGM and posting to it because he had wrung
out
the lines most important to him and grew bored with the trivia.

He also had more important Family, Travel and Investment priorities.

Now he's back...
--------------------------------------------

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

I write, as far as possible, exactly why [sic] I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Hilarious!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187930736.170600.59650@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 2:03 pm, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com
wrote:

In remarks addressed to Elizabeth Moss, I said:

"Stewart and at least one of the list-managers seem to disagree about a
question of empirical fact. The question is which behavior is more
effective
in silencing trolls: ignoring them or attacking them. I have absolutely
no
empirical evidence that bears on this question."

In reply to that question, Stewart said:

"An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was
ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from
which
he
emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."

In his most recent post he says:

[Richard Smyth having written:]
"> In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines
stopped
posting after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped
posting because Stewart had whacked him.

"This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM
after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion
here
for a time."

I do not believe that I falsely represented the meaning of Stewart's
initial reply to > the question I put to Elizabeth Moss.

Then your belief is incorrect. I thought logic was supposed to be your
strong suit - how does Hines emerging from a struggle with his tail
between his legs equate to his going from one proximate cause (your
version, that I claimed it was due to a whacking from me) rather than
another (mine, from humiliation of his own making abetted by me)?

You are falling into the mistake, unfortunately common enough here, of
reading my posts through the prism of your own pre-existing analysis,
and evident stereotyping of my characteristics and motives.

I write, as far as possible, exactly why I mean, not a fuzzy
approximation to this. Fuzzy reading of Stewart is not attributable to
Stewart, so the subject line is misleading.

Parsing Stewart must be as difficult as parsing Duns Scotus. Since I
have
great affection for Scotus, Stewart must not take that as anything but a
compliment.

The first compliment that any conscientious writer looks for is to be
read attentively.

Peter Stewart


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»