Respond to this messageReturn to Index
Original Message
  • Sure... I'll do my best.
    • (Login ever-a-newbie)
      Posted Aug 29, 2010 9:42 AM

      Is that a correct assessment of your position on 'facts'?

      Due to the concept of "Contextual Meaning", the answer is Depends... There are multiple branches of dialog created in this thread, some to the original point, many are protracted points.

      If you're interested in the original point (were Muslims involved with WTC, and are there Muslim Terrorists), please follow the dialogs with Vince, Mondo, and others. Although we don't agree, the positions & logic behind them are clear and easy to follow.

      If you're interested in understanding the conundrum related to facts, semantics, and logic, refer to the test you've proposed to other. It is full of circles and contradictions, follow them and learn a lot - including the logic and reasoning behind the claim that puzzles you - "In the purest sense of the word, there are no facts" - hint: "purest sense" of the word includes both the concrete and the abstract, hence the ambiguities and contradictions that you're finding troublesome.

      If you're interested in understanding why & how I'm confused with your posts, simple follow the trail and consider your own replies.

      My original post regarding the exercise that I had promised to get to Vince:

      Your reply, an essay on "hearsay" with a suggestion of the "test", and the concept that "the explicit entails the implicit":

      My reply was to the logic and reasoning behind your suggested "test":,+there's+not+that+much+anyone+can+claim.

      To which, you agreed (I assume that's what you meant by "Bingo". And you add: And did you take the test; trying to cite the properties that define fact?,+there's+not+that+much+anyone+can+claim.+--+Bingo

      To which my replies were claiming, and showing, the limits and flaws of logic - which is about assumptions & inputs.,+it+has+its+limits.

      To which, you press some more on your "test":

      The remaining threads (following this and replies in other branches) are an example an illustration of how & why logic, and your test, have limits - semantics and the assumption of assumed & common meaning of words, and that the combined phrases and meaning of words have limits. Using the test you've providing to illustrate how it's poignantly true and yet contradictory at the same time. A simple technique to "break" any system that is basic 100% on logic, 100% certainty, and 100% determinism.

      Again, take your own test, and post your results so everyone can see the results and critique the logic behind your thinking. Logic clearly dictates that transparency and review are critical to assessing the merits of logic.

      To the point of how & why your point is confusing, take this post:'s+nothing+to+discuss+with+'explicit+entails+implicit'+--+Because-

      There are various branches of the threads where "evidence" is claimed as "hearsay". I posed that many of the points & conclusions of the video that were posted are nothing more than hearsay as well. You claimed that my point was not substantiated, so I ask you to pick your favorite point from the video... To which your point was that your favorite point was "the explicit entails the implicit".

      And to add, this post interesting and intentionally seem to steers away from the discussion... Avoiding to address, and to substantiate, your own claims that my points are unsubstantiated. A technique frequently used by others that you used to vehemently argue with at the WOB forum and cause you great frustration. But these others have moved on from the WOB and will remain unnamed here.

    Login Status
  • You are not logged in
    • Login

      Provides additional benefits such as notifications, signatures, and user authentication.

      Create Account
    Your Name
    Message Title
    Message Text
    Image Services
    Enable formatted text (what's this?)